OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill,—Standing Order of 17th December, 1919, relating to the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill, suspended in the last Session of Parliament, read;

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill,—

"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Blaydon," read the first and second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the first assembly of the League of Nations will be called; where the first sitting will be held; which nations will be invited to send representatives; and whether the sitting will be public or private?

The ADDITIONAL UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I fear I am not in a position to reply to the first two and last parts of the question, no decisions having as yet been taken. As regards the third part, all the States which are members of the League of Nations will be entitled to send representatives to the Assembly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the States we have recognised de facto be invited to send representatives to the first meeting of the Assembly?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If they are members of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

RUHLEBEN PRISONERS' CLAIMS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have yet been taken to satisfy the claims of the Ruhleben prisoners who by their internment in Germany suffered personal and financial injury; and whether, in the event of the settlement of their claims being postponed as a result of the delays incidental to the fulfilment of the Peace Treaty, some interim and provisional grant can be immediately made to them?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant friend is no doubt aware that under the Peace Treaty it is the British Government and not individual British citizens who have a claim for reparation from Germany. The claims to be made by His Majesty's Government upon the German Government for reparation are in process of preparation. By the terms of the Treaty it is the Reparation Commission which will decide upon the admissibility of the claims submitted by His Majesty's Government. Until this has been done, and payment has begun to be made by the German Government, there are no funds in the hands of His Majesty's Government out of which grants of the kind suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend could be made.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great number of very hard cases—men with perfectly strong claims, which, no doubt, will eventually be met; and could he not use his influence with a fund such as the Prince of Wales's Fund or the Civil Liabilities Fund in order to get some assistance given to these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is for me to apply to the Prince of Wales's Fund, or any fund of that kind. My hon. and gallant Friend himself might submit, or cause to be submitted, the class of cases he has in mind.

Sir S. HOARE: Is my right hon. Friend aware really that some of these cases are very hard cases, and could he not make representations of some kind?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no personal knowledge of these cases. I think
that the representations my hon. and gallant Friend has in view would be far better met by those who have gone into the cases, and can speak with some personal conviction and knowledge.

GERMAN IMPOST DUTIES.

Mr. RAPER: 3.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the Peace Treaty stipulated that duties on goods imported into Germany were to remain the same as hitherto in force for a period of six months after the ratification of Peace, and that on the strength of this assurance British manufacturers and merchants have sent large quantities of merchandise into the occupied territory, on some of which the duty on the old basis has been paid; whether he is aware of the fact that the Peace Commission has given permission to the German Government to charge duty on a gold basis on a large quantity of goods that arrived immediately prior to the ratification of Peace or shortly afterwards, and that this has in many instances so increased the cost of the goods as to make the sale of the same impossible; and whether, in view of the hardship thereby caused to British manufacturers and merchants, he will take steps to ensure that the new duty on a gold basis shall not affect any goods which were landed in Cologne before the 1st February?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The hon. Member's reference to the Treaty of Peace is, I think, somewhat misleading. Article 269 of that instrument provides that for six months after its coming into force, and for thirty-six months in the case of certain specified goods, the duties leviable shall not be higher than those applied to imports into Germany on 31st July, 1914, at which date, as the hon. Member will be aware, duties were payable on a gold basis. It was in view of this provision that the Supreme Council authorised the collection of duties on a gold basis from January 1st in the occupied territory. The question of the treatment to be accorded to goods in areas where hardships may have been involved is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMY RECRUITS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many volunteer recruits have been obtained for His Majesty's Army since the armistice with Germany; how many of these have enlisted for more than 12 months' service; and how many soldiers who are not volunteers are still retained with the Colours?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Archibald Williamson): I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will make on the Army Estimates on Thursday next.

Colonel GREIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether recruiting for the Territorial Army has commenced or not?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I can only answer that by saying that a notice has appeared in the papers that the lists are open.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC PROVINCES (BRITISH MILITARY MISSIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War what British Military Missions are at present in the Baltic Provinces of the former Russian Empire, Finland, and Poland, respectively; what is their strength and composition; and for what purpose are they maintained in those countries?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There is a British Military Mission in the Baltic States, forming part of the Inter-Allied Mission ordered by the Supreme Council at Paris in connection with the Peace Treaty. Its strength and composition is thirty officers and twenty other ranks. There are also small British Missions in Finland and Warsaw, whose duties are confined to keeping the War Office informed as to the military situation in North Russia and Poland respectively. Their strengths and compositions are as follow:—
Finland.—Ten officers and nineteen other ranks.
Poland.—Twelve officers and twelve other ranks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it expected that it will be possible to
withdraw these Missions, in view of the recent statement of policy with regard to Russia?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid that is a question that must be settled by the Cabinet. I am afraid I cannot answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIEKS MISSING (IDENTIFICATION).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the great anxiety felt by the relations of missing men owing to reports that military hospitals contain cases of such severe mental trouble that identity cannot be established, he will arrange to publish photographs of all such patients in the Press or otherwise, and will also collect all these cases in one hospital where they can be seen by the relatives who still have hopes of tracing men who have been reported missing?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply-on the 9th December last to the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham. There is now only one soldier of the Imperial Forces who is unidentified owing to mental trouble.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Would it be possible to publish a photograph of the soldier in the Press, in view of the large number of relatives of missing men who are anxious about these cases?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will enquire into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEASED SOLDIERS' BALANCES.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any balances left by deceased soldiers who died intestate is invested in the War Office orphans savings bank at 2½ per cent.; and if he can explain why money is not allowed to accumulate for these orphans at a rate more in accordance with the interest which could be raised for trustee investments?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the amount is sufficiently large, the share of a deceased soldier's estate belonging to his children is invested as stated. The question of obtaining a better rate of interest than is possible under the existing regulations is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: And if it is not sufficiently large, what rate does he get?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The money is sent to the trustees.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not rather hard to penalise a large estate by giving it something less than one-half the market rate of interest?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the matter is under consideration.

MEDICAL HISTORY SHEETS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the question of furnishing each man on discharge or demobilisation with a copy of his Army medical history sheet, as the possession of this evidence would very materially assist men in establishing their statutory right to a pension?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Army medical history sheets are confidential, and it would be contrary to the practice of the War Office to furnish copies of them to the men concerned or to other individuals. Apart from this, the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would involve a great amount of additional clerical work and appears to be quite unnecessary. The medical history sheets of all soldiers invalided from the Army are sent to the Ministry of Pensions, and in cases where men, discharged in the ordinary way, subsequently claim a disability pension, their medical history sheets and other documents are always obtained by the Ministry of Pensions from the Record Office.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices with the Minister of Pensions to enable men to get a copy of the medical history sheet? That is what they want, because they want to be able to say, "This is my medical history."

Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the application is signed, and the statement made definitely that it is the man himself who requires the medical history sheet, so that it may not get into other hands and be used for an improper purpose?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given that these sheets are regarded as confidential, and I do not think it would be suitable to allow others to use them.

WOMEN EMPLOYED.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many women are now employed by the Army authorities in England; how many in France and the occupied areas; how many elsewhere; and what duties they are carrying out?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are at present 284 members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps in the United Kingdom. They are employed at the headquarters of the corps and at the Records Office on clerical work in connection with the corps. There are 65 employed overseas on work connected with graves registration. In addition there are 413 women motor drivers; 889 employed in mechanical transport depots, &c.; 4,891 nurses, &c. I regret it is not possible to show separately the numbers of those serving at home and abroad.

Viscount CURZON: What progress has been made, as indicated by these figures, in the demobilisation of these ladies, as compared with the answer given by the Secretary for War last Session?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that; it does not seem to arise out of the question.

Mr. RENDALL: Is it not the fact that many of these women, after being demobilised, are being made into ordinary civilian workers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like notice of that.

EDUCATION SCHEME (OFFICERS).

Mr. MYERS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether temporary officers who are to be given regular commissions under the Army education scheme will be eligible for staff appointments under that scheme; and whether he can give an assurance that all appointments under the scheme will be made solely in reference to the personal capability of the officers concerned and without regard to any record of purely military training at Sandhurst or Woolwich?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is obvious that, in forming the Educational Corps of the Regular Army, efficiency can only be secured by attaching primary importance to the educational qualifications of the applicants; the hon. Member may rest assured that all appointments, whether staff or instructional, in that corps will be made solely in reference to the personal capability of the individual officer concerned for the particular post in question.

RESERVE SERVICE (OFFICERS AND MEN).

Major GLYN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to-issue any Army Order in the near future regarding the terms and conditions of Reserve service for officers and men, especially in view of the anxiety of many officers who intend to resign their commissions as soon as they are acquainted with the new regulations; and whether there is congestion and a large number of officers in excess of establishment, thus blocking promotion and discouraging young officers from continuing in the service?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The conditions of service in the Reserve of Officers are still under consideration, and I cannot say at present when it will be possible to make an announcement on the subject. As regards other ranks, it is not proposed to alter the pre-war terms and conditions of Reserve service, but the enlistment into Section D of the Reserve of a certain number of those who served in the late War is at present being considered.

Major GLYN: Is it the policy of the War Office to ask those officers and men who have had experience in the War to remain at the disposal of the country in case of emergency, thereby effecting economy in the matter of military expenditure?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that question unless it is put down.

TROOPS IN FRANCE.

Major GLYN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are still remaining in France a larger number of troops than was anticipated at the time of the last Army Estimates; whether the reasons for this are chiefly due to the
complications caused by the delay in concluding peace with Austria, Hungary, and Turkey; and what are the approximate establishment figures for the following services performed by troops; graves registration, lines of communication for the Rhine to Italy and to Marseilles, repatriation of railway wagons and lorries under War Office arrangements, and guarding, sorting, and loading of stores thrown up for disposal?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: With regard to the first part of the question, there is no ground for the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that delay in the reduction of the numbers of troops in France has resulted from delay in the conclusion of peace with Austria, Hungary and Turkey. Any delay that has arisen has been due mainly to the magnitude of the work of clearing up and disposal. The total establishment for the services referred to in the latter part of the question is approximately 32,000 all ranks; 11,000 of these are engaged in handling, storage, movement and guarding of surplus stores, including a proportion for the repatriation of railway wagons and for railway services for the troops. The balance of about 21,000 are employed on military duties, including principally work under the Graves Registration Department.

Major GLYN: Will the hon. Gentleman make enquiries of the Ministry of Munitions, where he will find that the Commander says he can do perfectly well with 5,000 and does not need 11,000; if so, may the balance of these men be demobilised?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer for what I shall find; but I shall be very pleased to inquire if the hon. and gallant Member will indicate to me exactly what he wishes to know.

Viscount CURZON: Does the cost of these men come on the Army Vote or on that of the Ministry of Munitions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: These men to whom I have referred come on the Army Vote.

SERVICE PENSIONERS.

Colonel YATE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the case of service pensioners under the War Office who, for the benefit of the
Army and for the sole reason of their efficiency in their then capacity, were not permitted to re-enlist, as authorised under Army Order 338, of August, 1914, by the Heads of Departments and are consequently debarred from the increased scale of pensions sanctioned under Army Order 325, of September, 1919, and authorise the reassessment of their pensions accordingly?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Silvertown.

SHORT SERVICE.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Private B. Llewellyn, South Wales Borderers, Brecon Barracks, was not allowed to purchase his discharge under Section 10 of Army Order B 265A (short service), seeing that all conditions under that section, which clearly gives the right to purchase the same, had been fulfilled?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Discharge from the Army by purchase is at present suspended. Private Llewellyn, having given the requisite notice, he will be allowed to purchase his discharge as soon as discharge by purchase is reopened.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is there not only one condition in the Clause and has it not been complied with; consequently, cannot this man legally claim purchase if he wishes to?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the answer is in the negative. I am told the conditions are suspended.

Mr. W. THORNE: When will purchase be reopened again?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down to the Secretary of State, I will see that he gets an answer.

NURSES.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Q.A.I.M.N.S. nurses employed on military service receive a salary of £65 per annum and that the present pension is £32 10s. per annum after 20 years' service; and whether, in view of the present high cost of living, he will consider the question of raising the salaries and pensions of these nurses, most of whom have served during the late War and many of whom
are now serving in military stations both at Home and abroad?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The rate of pay and pension for nurses of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service is at present under consideration.

GERMAN RAILWAYS (BRITISH OFFICERS' LUGGAGE).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War, if his attention has been drawn to the frequent thefts of British officers' luggage on German railways; if the losses sustained by officers are made good by this Government; and whether steps will be taken to make Germany responsible for these thefts.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am informed that thefts of officers' luggage on German railways are not frequent, only three cases being known to have occurred during the past 10 months. Until recently, railway transport was entirely under military control and claims for loss proved to be the fault of the military authorities were accepted and refunds made in accordance with existing regulations. The German railway authorities took over control six weeks ago, since when no claims for loss have been reported. The German authorities are liable in all cases where theft is proved to have occurred on the German railways, provided the luggage was registered.

PAY WARRANTS.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the provisions of Article 497 of the Pay Warrant, as amended by Army Order 235 of 1917, are not being applied to the cases of retired officers who patriotically came forward early in the war and accepted employment in a lower rank than they originally held in the Army: whether to adhere to this practice is not unjust to those officers who, in their anxiety to serve, made no bargain as to the terms of their appointments; and if, under the circumstances, he will reconsider his decision, more especially in view of the small number of officers affected?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with details of a specific ease, I will have it
inquired into, and will communicate the result to him.

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (FORAGE DEPARTMENT).

Captain COOTE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Service Corps (Forage Department) are entitled to gratuity upon demobilisation?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer is in the negative. These men received civilian rates of wages.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers of this Corps are entitled to the gratuity?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

DEMOBILISATION FURLOUGH (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).

Captain COOTE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are prepared to meet the cost of medical attendance upon soldiers who fall sick while on demobilisation furlough, together with medical expenses of the soldier's family if they catch the disease from the soldier; and whether he is aware that in the case of the late Private C. D. Potter, No. 39,107, Norfolk Regiment, 9, Stunt Road, Norwich, the military authorities have refused to pay the cost of brandy ordered by the military doctor, together with the cost of medical attendance upon the man's mother who caught the disease while nursing her son?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Soldiers on demobilisation furlough are entitled to medical attendance under the same conditions as soldiers on ordinary furlough. The family of a soldier, other than a regular soldier on the married establishment, is not normally eligible for medical attendance. I will have enquiry made in the case mentioned.

ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.

Major BARNETT: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether temporary officers who have been granted permanent commissions in the Army Pay Department have been given departmental grading above all assistant paymasters irrespective of service or experience; whether any assistant paymasters have been appointed
paymasters; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of promoting to the rank of paymasters a number of those officers who are qualified therefor by long and honourable service in the Army Pay Corps and the Army Pay Department?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A few permanent commissions in the Army Pay Department were recently granted to certain temporary officers who have shown marked ability throughout in the discharge of their important duties. These officers were appointed to these posts, by very rigid selection, from among officers of the Acting Paymaster class. As regards the promotion of Assistant Paymasters, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member on the 22nd December last.

Major BARNETT: Is there any reason why some of the Regular soldiers who rendered good service during and before the War should not be given promotion to Paymaster?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will convey that inquiry.

BLACK SEA ARMY.

Mr. SWAN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War, what is the present strength of the Army of the Black Sea: and how the force is distributed?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The present strength of the British Army of the Black "Sea is as follows:—

British
10,798


Indian
13,000


Labourers, Muleteers and Followers
8,401

The bulk of this force is in the vicinity of Constantinople but detachments are stationed at Salonika, the Dardanelles and Batoum and on the Anatolian Railway.

INDIAN ARMY (WAR PRISONERS' ALLOWANCES).

Colonel YATE: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, considering that officers of the British service while prisoners of war in Germany drew full pay of their rank plus allowances during the whole time of their imprisonment, why officers of the Indian Army while prisoners of war should be given full pay and allowances for only the first two
months, and after the expiry of that time should be deprived of half their staff allowances; and, as there is no provision for such deprivation in the Indian Army regulations, will he now put a stop to this differentiation between the two services and refund the money arbitrarily withheld?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My predecessor explained the position to the hon. and gallant Member on the 11th and 18th November last. I see no reason for making any change in the arrangements. As the Indian Army scale is higher than the British Army scale the Indian Army officer from Captain upwards received, even after the expiration of the first 61 days, substantially more pay than the British Army officer of corresponding rank, while a Lieutenant received practically the same pay as a Lieutenant in the British Army.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Indian Army alone have been deprived of full pay which was given to all other officers of the Army, the Navy, and Air Force?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I gather from the information I have been able to obtain that the Indian officer got in some cases more than and in every case as much as officers of the British Army.

Colonel YATE: As they have got certain fixed rates of pay, when there are no orders why did they not draw their full pay the same as everybody else?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer off-hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

RECRUITS.

Major NALL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the practical impossibility of appealing for recruits to the Territorial Army before conditions of service have been finally settled or commanding officers appointed, and before permanent staffs are installed at the various headquarters to answer inquiries and give information; and whether he will avoid unnecessary expenditure on a recruiting campaign until essential preliminaries have been cleared up?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Instructions as to procedure on enlistment and a pamphlet containing conditions of service in
the new Territorial Force have been issued to all concerned. All pre-war units have officers in temporary command and in over sixty per cent. of the units the appointments of permanent commanding officers have been approved. The appointment of commanding officers for the remaining units will be dealt with, as promised, by the Travelling Board, which has commenced its sittings. Selected Adjutants are being posted to units and Permanent Staffs formed as rapidly as possible.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a staff will be given to commanding officers? How is it possible for a commanding officer by himself to enlist recruits when he has no office and no staff?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. The matter is in hand. It cannot be done in one day. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said will be borne in mind, no doubt.

Major NALL: Is it not rather useless to advertise for recruits before there is anybody to give them information?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer for the Secretary of State in a matter of this sort, but I understand the whole operation is in progress, and all the matters suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be dealt with.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Aberdeenshire and some parts of the North-Eastern district of Scotland there is considerable dissatisfaction with the proposal, and will the Territorial Association have ample opportunities of placing views before the Secretary of State?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think that hardly arises out of the question.

INDIAN ARMY (RELEASE OF OFFICERS AND MEN).

Mr. S. ROBINSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to cases of officers and men who have been abroad in Aden, India, &c, for 5½ years, but having been transferred to the Indian Army make fruitless efforts to secure release from the
Army; and what steps he proposes to take to do justice to men in this position?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The number of officers holding temporary commissions in the Indian Army, to which class it is assumed my hon. Friend is referring, who are still detained is now very small, and it is probable that they will soon be released.

TECHNICAL CORPS.

Major NALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether provision will be made in the Territorial Army or Militia schemes for organising technical corps, composed of experts, for mechanical transport, wireless telegraphy, gas, liquid fire, and other branches requiring expert knowledge?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Territorial Force will be composed of units which are identical with those of the Regular Army. But the future policy is, for the present, to allocate such money as may be available to research and experiment in these subjects rather than to create special technical units which may not be suitable to the developments of mechanical and chemical warfare.

OVERSEAS MEDAL.

Major NALL: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it has now been decided to award a medal to Territorials who were efficient on 4th August, 1914, and proceeded overseas before 31st December, 1914; and whether he is aware of the effect a favourable announcement will have on the recruiting campaign?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply on Thursday last to the hon. Member for East Cardiff, in which my right hon. Friend stated that His Majesty had been pleased to approve the issue of a special medal to members of the Territorial Force who undertook to serve abroad in the early stages of the War, provided they are not entitled to the "1914 Star" or the "1914–1915 Star."

Major NALL: Is it not a fact that, under the provision just read out, the Territorials who volunteered to go overseas in 1914 and who managed to stay at home till 1915 or later are the only ones who will get this medal? Will the right
hon. Gentleman reconsider the conditions so that the men who really went abroad in the early stages of the War are properly recognised?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will convey the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the proper quarter.

UNIT COMMANDS.

Major NALL: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether his statement at the last meeting of County Association representatives that the command of units in the Territorial Army will be given only to officers who have commanded a unit with distinction in the field bars officers who have served with distinction in subordinate ranks and are next in seniority for command; and what is the correct interpretation of the War Office intentions as to the appointment of Territorial officers to command Territorial units?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Travelling Board, which my right hon. Friend promised, has been engaged during the past fortnight in examining the recommendations for appointments to the command of units put forward by County Associations in conjunction with the General Officers Commanding the Commands. The Board, with the assistance of a representative of the County Association concerned and the Divisional Commanders, is investigating every case. The claims of all officers are being considered according to their seniority and confidential reports.

Major NALL: Will men who have been second in command in the War have a chance of commanding now?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir, I have said so.

COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS (SECRETARIES).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at with regard to the increase of salaries to secretaries of Territorial Force Associations, as indicated in the reply given at the conference of the council of county associations on 1st May, 1919; and if these increases will be retrospective?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The review of the present salaries of secretaries of county associations is not yet completed, but my right hon. Friend hopes shortly
to make proposals for adjusting these salaries in the future. The date from which any revision shall take effect will require consideration.

YEOMANRY.

Captain COOTE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that during the war certain Yeomanry regiments were trained and used as machine-gun battalions; and, seeing that in the reconstitution of the Territorial Force these units are all to be converted into artillery brigades and certain other Yeomanry units, formerly converted into infantry, are to be trained as machine gunners, will he give the reason why no use is being made of the machine-gun training already given to the former units?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In preparing the scheme for the conversion of the Yeomanry, the fact that certain Yeomanry units had had experience of machine-gun duties is not being lost sight of. To save expense the units of neighbouring counties are being combined to form artillery brigades and, where possible, the more senior regiments are being converted into artillery so as to remain mounted units. The units selected for machine-gun duty were either units whose location did not admit of a convenient linking with other units, or which were low on the seniority list. The whole of the allocation of duties to the various Yeomanry regiments will be the subject of a final review during the next few weeks.

Captain COOTE: During that period will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that in respect of these units the machine gunners had no previous training in the subject?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will convey the purport of the hon. Member's remarks to the Secretary of State.

Captain BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate a statement so that we may know exactly what is going on?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. Gentleman will probably hear it on Thursday.

INVESTITURES (OFFICIAL PROGRAMMES).

Captain BOWYER: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his
attention has been called to the following words in the official programme at the recent investiture, Nominal role of persons proposing to be present to receive the Territorial decoration; whether he is aware that very many officers of the Territorial Force and others most strongly deprecate the use of these words; whether these words were used with the sanction of the War Office; and whether he will take steps to secure that no undue distinctions of this nature should be made in future between officers of the Territorial Force and Regular Army?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My attention had not been previously called to this matter. The programme of the ceremony of a provincial investiture, which is drawn up locally, is in no way official and is not submitted to the War Office for approval. I am informed that in one case the words complained of were used by the Civic Authorities through a misunderstanding. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there was no intention whatever to make any invidious distinction between Regular and Territorial Force officers.

Captain BOWYER: As I have the offending document here, may I bring it to the right hon. Gentleman, as he will see from it that there is this discrimination?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I shall be glad to see it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (AWARDS FOR HELP).

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what progress is being made as regards acknowledging the indebtedness of this country to those inhabitants of Belgium and France who helped our prisoners of war and especially to those who assisted them to escape, often at great risk to themselves; what form the proposed acknowledgment is to take; and whether, even though the list may not yet be complete, a beginning will be made in the announcement of awards?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is assumed that the bulk of the recommendations for services rendered by French and Belgian
subjects to British prisoners of war have now been received, but new ones are still put forward from time to time.
It is proposed to recommend any individual whose services have been exceptional for a decoration. Others would receive a gold or silver medallion, and others, again, a letter of thanks.
The list of names received is at present being considered, but it is not thought desirable to announce any awards until this is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL TOWNSHEND.

RESIGNATION WITHDRAWN.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make as to the circumstances under which General Townshend resigned his commission?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: General Townshend has not resigned his commission. His application to do so was based on a misapprehension of the regulations, and he has withdrawn it. He has been informed that he is at liberty to retire on retired pay should he so desire, and his reply to this has not yet been received.

Mr. BILLING: Arising out of the misunderstanding which exists in connection "with General Townshend, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to take the opportunity of the Army Estimates to make a short statement on the subject?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I shall be pleased to ask him to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME DETECTION.

Mr. G RATTAN DOYLE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the increasing number of unsolved murders and burglaries during the last few months and the failure of the police to effectually cope with the epidemic of crime, will he state what steps he proposes to take to reform the system and thereby afford the public more adequate protection?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): There has certainly been an increase
during the last few months in the number of crimes of violence and the more serious offences against property, such as burglary and housebreaking. Returns received from the Police, however, show that the total number of indictable offences in the months November, December and January, are somewhat below the average number for three months in the years 1912 and 1913. The Police are taking special steps to cope with the situation and I hope shortly to introduce a Bill for ensuring the more effective control over the possession and carrying of firearms.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, would it not help the situation if some of the detectives who are used for spying on trade unions were put on detective work to protect the public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.

Mr. DOYLE: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that the underground activities of Bolshevik agents in this country have greatly increased of late; if the police have recently seized great quantities of propagandist literature; if any newspapers and British subjects are being subsidised by Soviet money; and what quantities, if any, of counterfeit money, manufactured under the auspices of the Russian Government with the object of debasing the British currency, has found its way into this country?

Mr. SHORTT: The activities of Bolshevist agents are receiving constant and careful attention, but I do not think it would be in the public interest to make public such particulars as the hon. Member asks for. I may say, however, that no counterfeit notes manufactured in Russia have yet been circulated in England, but specimens have been received of such counterfeit notes; these were brought to England from Soviet Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS DEPORTED.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of Germans and other former enemy aliens, respectively, who have been deported from this country under Section
9 of The Aliens Restriction Amendment Act, 1919; and the number of such persons, if any, to whom exemptions from deportation have been granted by the advisory committee constituted under that section and the number of such persons who still remain in this country, distinguishing between the various nationalities?

Mr. SHORTT: In the absence of any allegations within the meaning of the section mentioned to the effect that the continued residence in the United Kingdom of a former enemy alien is undesirable in the public interest, no proceedings under that section, whether by way of deportation or exemption, have yet taken place. As the answer to the last sentence of the question involves a number of figures, I will, with the consent of the hon. and learned Baronet circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:—

Number of former enemy aliens now in the United Kingdom (excluding women of British birth).

Approximate figures.


Nationality.
Male.
Female.
Total.


Austro-Hungarians
4,721
3,557
8,278


Germans
8,446
5,320
13,766


Bulgars
29
34
63


Turks
204
129
333



13,400
9,040
22,440

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that since the passing of this Act which contained a deportation section no Germans have been deported?

Mr. SHORTT: There have been no allegations made against any German on which it was possible to act.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this futile section was introduced by the House of Lords, against the will of the House of Commons?

Oral Answers to Questions — BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the difficulty of keeping rear lights on ordinary bicycles burning during windy weather and on
bad roads, he will now cancel or modify the Order requiring the same, seeing that the war-time conditions which necessitated this order do not now prevail?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I cannot see my way to relax the requirements with regard to red rear-lights on bicycles at present. The reasons which I gave in reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 18th November, namely, that the whole question is being considered by a Committee and that restricted lighting arrangements are in operation in some towns—still hold good.

Mr. THOMSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether a reflector would meet the case?

Mr. SHORTT: That is being considered by the Committee.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of those reflectors are of no use whatever?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this regulation of the greatest possible benefit to cyclists themselves?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select' Committee contains one representative of the bicycle riders and the rest are motor-car drivers?

Mr. BILLING: Is it not the fact that this regulation was made in the interests of the lives of cyclists themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS (GIRLS).

Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether any cases have been brought to his notice of girls being found on board foreign ships in British ports for immoral purposes; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to deal with it?

Mr. SHORTT: Two cases of women going on board foreign ships for immoral purposes have been brought to my notice. I am making inquiry with regard to these cases, but, except where there is a dock or harbour byelaw dealing with the matter, the police have no power to deny women access to ships.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking powers in the future?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course, it will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN MAGISTRATES.

Mr. CLOUGH: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of women and children who come before the courts, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for the appointment of at least one woman magistrate on every Bench in the United Kingdom?

Mr. SHORTT: The Lord Chancellor has taken active steps for selecting women for appointment as magistrates throughout the country, and no legislation beyond the recent Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act is required.

Mr. CLOUGH: Has the suggestion put forward in my question the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and support?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL ACTS (ADMINISTRATION).

Viscount CURZON: 44.
asked the Home Secretary what has been done relative to establishing a central authority for the administration of the Petrol Acts, as recommended in the Report of the Petroleum Committee of 1913?

Mr. SHORTT: Legislation would be necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and it has not been found possible yet to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUGLAS-PENNANT CASE (COSTS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the total cost to the nation of the Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords in the Douglas-Pennant case, distinguishing the legal costs and the other costs for which the Government was directly responsible and the costs of the officers unjustly accused which were paid by the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The total cost to public funds of the Douglas-Pennant Inquiry is estimated
at £9,585. This amount is made up as follows:—

(a) Legal costs
£3,251


(b) Other costs
1,489


(c) Costs of officers implicated
4,845

The last item is not, however, final, as the bills of costs have not yet been taxed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can this House have an opportunity of debating the propriety of paying these costs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They will come up in some estimate, I think.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause these accounts to be laid upon the table of the House so that Members may have an opportunity of seeing how these figures are arrived at—£4,000 for the officers' costs?

Mr. W. THORNE: Trade Union rate of wages!

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will these sums appear in the Estimates so that we can, if desired, challenge them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Without having looked into the Estimates, I cannot be sure, but I feel quite certain that they will be in a form to enable the House to deal with them.

Mr. BILLING: May I have a reply to my question: whether the accounts will be laid upon the table of the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that it will be worth while.

Mr. HOUSTON: Have the Government contemplated the recovery of these costs from the lady in question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the legal profession are going to "blackleg" one another?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Lords, against the advice of the Government, to inquire into the Douglas-Pennant case, and that such committee was appointed by a small majority in a House when only 111 Members voted out of a total of about 700 entitled to vote; whether, as the result of the appointment of this committee, heavy costs were thrown on the public purse with no corresponding
public advantage; and whether he will introduce legislation restricting the powers of the House of Lords to appoint Select Committees and to involve the country in expenditure of public money?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the facts stated in the earlier part of my question, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this matter as part of the general question of the reform of the Second Chamber?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that the facts, as stated, are substantially accurate, but I hope that the result of the reform of the Second Chamber will make it unnecessary to deal with this matter.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this expenditure, though unfortunate, is such rank blasphemy in the House of Lords when the House of Commons spends large sums without objection?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the reason is that the Members of the House of Commons feel that in this case, at least, the House of Commons was right and that the other Assembly was wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (MR. G. LANSBURY AND MR. R. MACDONALD).

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government granted a passport to Russia to Mr. George Lansbury; whether similar facilities were refused to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; and, if so, what were the reasons for the distinction in these cases?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Mr. Lansbury did not receive a passport for Russia, such passports not being granted by the Allies. His passport was for the Scandinavian countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS.

SELECT COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: 48.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give an opportunity at an early date for the
discussion of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that it will be difficult to find time for this discussion in the immediate future. Perhaps it may be chosen for consideration in private Members' time.

Sir M. BARLOW: If a sufficient number of the Members of the House express a desire that this Report should be discussed, will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am inclined to think that an opportunity for a discussion is desirable, but I do not see how it can be done in the immediate future.

Mr. HOGGE: In the meantime, are the Government going to pay out on the suggestions of the Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (PUBLIC STATUE).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any definite arrangements have yet been made for the erection of the public statue to Mr. Chamberlain; and when it is proposed to submit the necessary resolutions for the consideration of the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as time can be found the House of Commons will be invited to pass the necessary resolution for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.

RAILWAYS, COAL AND BREAD.

Captain BAGLEY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have been expended during the current financial year on the railways, coal, and bread subsidies; and what the respective totals are likely to be for the whole financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the particulars desired are as follow:—

—
Expenditure to date.
Revised Estimate 1919–20.


Railway Agreements Vote.
£ 45,600,000
From £50,000,000 to £53,000,000


Coal Deficiency Vote
22,631,000
£32,200,000


Bread Subsidy Vote
49,400,000
£56,500,000

It should be added that it is estimated that, should the Coal Emergency Bill now before Parliament become law, about £20,000,000 of the expenditure incurred from the Coal Deficiency Vote will be recovered. A good deal of it would have been recovered if the measure of last Session had been passed.

Captain BAGLEY: What would be the price of the 4lb. loaf to-day if it were not for this subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to deal with a great many figures, and I cannot undertake to carry them all in my head. I think it is one—well, I think I had better not say.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. WIGNALL: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a subsidy was paid to the Cunard Company between the years 1881 and 1914 and, if so, what amount; whether, during the same period, loans were advanced by the Government to the Cunard Steamship Company and, if so, what amount; whether these loans have been repaid; and during what period did the repayment take place?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Between 1887 and 1907 certain payments, amounting ultimately to £22,500 per annum, were made by the Admiralty by way of subsidy to the Cunard Company. In addition subsidy payments have been made under the Cunard Agreement approved by the House on the 12th August, 1904, and under the Cunard Agreement Money Act, 1904, a loan of £2,600,000 for 20 years at 2¾ per cent. was advanced to the Company. Of this sum £1,560,000 has now been repaid.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why these huge sums of money were issued to this company carrying such a small percentage?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, because at the time that the Act was passed by this House the rates of interest for money were very much lower than they are now, and the conditions proposed appeared fair and commended themselves to the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME-TAX.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the sovereign to-day is worth only half its pre-war value, he can see his way to raising the total exemption from Income Tax by at least 100 per cent., and thereby and in particular afford relief to that section of the community which is in receipt of small fixed incomes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Royal Commission which was appointed last year to enquire into the Income Tax in all its aspects, is now considering its Report. The limit of exemption, in common with the abatements, relief and other allowances, from the tax, forms part of the larger question of the proper graduation of the Income Tax, and this has necessarily been one of the outstanding matters to which the attention of the Royal Commission has been directed. In these circumstances, further consideration of my hon. Friend's proposal must await the Commission's Report.

Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will the Report be issued before the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chairman informs me that he hopes to have the Report issued in time for consideration before this year's Budget.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to that class of people with small incomes who suffer so greatly—more than any other class—owing to the fall in the value of the sovereign, whether he has any sympathy with the suggestion in the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I must restrain my sympathy in these In
come Tax matters until I come to the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARLY CLOSING ORDER, 1917 (SALE OF SWEETS).

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether the decision to alter paragraph 4 of the Early Closing Order, 1917, so as to permit the sale of sweets in theatres, cinemas, etc., after the closing hour for shops, has yet been given effect to; and, if not, will he give full consideration to the protest forwarded to him by the Sweet Retailers' Association against the proposed alteration, which, in their opinion, would place the shopkeeper in an unfair position and lead to a demand for a later closing hour?

Mr. SHORTT: No decision on this matter has yet been taken. I received a deputation representing the Confectionery Trade on the 2nd February, and am giving careful consideration to their representations.

Lieut.-Colonel. A. MURRAY: Would it not be better to restrict the sale of sweets and allow more sugar to the consumers?

Mr. SHORTT: That question does not come in my department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEADLIGHTS.

Colonel YATE: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any regulations in force prohibiting the use of dazzling headlights in the streets?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. There are no regulations at present in force prohibiting the use of dazzling headlights, but, as the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, a Departmental Committee is considering the question of lights on motor-cars.

Colonel YATE: Will action be taken on the report of the Committee, and when?

Mr. NEAL: The report will be considered when it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED POLICEMEN, LIVERPOOL (PENSIONS).

Mr. SEXTON: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the
Liverpool Watch Committee have declined to pay the pensions which became due to members of the Liverpool City Police who were dismissed in August last; and what steps he is prepared to take in the matter, seeing that Section 2 of the Police Emergency Provisions Act, 1915, provides that the pensions shall not be liable to forfeiture except for such offences as are scheduled under the Police Superannuation Acts?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that a few members of the Liverpool Police Force who were dismissed in consequence of their withdrawal from duty last summer had qualified for pensions by length of service, but that none of them had given notice of his wish to retire as required by Section 2 of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 191ft. They did not, therefore, secure their pensions and have no legal right to them. It is, however, within the discretion of the Liverpool police authority to waive the formality of written notice, and to grant the men pensions of the amount they would have, received if they had been allowed to retire when they completed twenty-six years' service and if they decide to do so I would take no objections. The pensions would, however, take effect only from the termination of the War.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several cases the men had given notice to go out of the service and were not allowed to leave, but that when the new regulations came in they were given a week's notice to clear out so as to get rid of them just in time to prevent them receiving the increased benefits which were really intended for them?

Mr. SHORTT: No.

Mr. BILLING: If I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman several such cases, will he see that the men receive just treatment?

Mr. SHORTT: I will inquire into any case that may be submitted.

Mr. HOUSTON: Has the Watch Committee of the Liverpool City Council power to deal with this question?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEALS (RE-HEARING).

Colonel ASHLEY: 57.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that a statutory right to pension has now been conceded and new tribunals unconnected with the Ministry of Pensions are being set up to deal with claims, an opportunity will be given for the rehearing of appeals disallowed by the Appeals Tribunal under the judisdiction of the Ministry, as in many cases great hardship has resulted from the decision of the tribunal in question?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): The class of case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is specifically excluded from the right of further appeal by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, and the reasons for its exclusion were explained in the Debate which preceded the passing of that Act.
I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the Appeal Tribunals set up under the Ministry were not subjected to any interference by this Department, and only differed from the present tribunals in that their decisions were not legally binding on the Minister, although almost invariably accepted by him.

CHILDLESS WIDOWS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 58.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the question of granting pensions on the higher scale to widows under the age of forty who have no children and who are incapable of working on grounds of ill-health, as the present regulation involves hardship where the widow is unable to supplement her pension by earnings?

Sir J. CRAIG: This matter is under consideration.

SINGLE DISABLED MEN (DEPENDANTS).

Colonel ASHLEY: 59.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the grant to a single disabled man of an allowance for a dependant, if the dependant drew separation allowance while he was serving, on the same principle that a married man is granted an allowance for his wife, in view of the fact that
the pension granted to a much disabled man is insufficient to maintain more than one person?

Sir R. THOMAS: 61.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is prepared to make grants to the dependants of single disabled soldiers who have now returned home from the Army disabled, who were recognised as dependants during the period of service?

Sir J. CRAIG: My right hon. Friend is unable to adopt this suggestion. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the purpose and effect of the alternative pension is to place the disabled man in the same position with regard to earnings, and thus with regard to his ability to support a dependant, as he was in before the War.

COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE (Mrs. WYBOURNE).

Mr. SITCH: 60.
asked the Pensions Minister whether Mrs. Wybourne, the mother of Private W. J. Wybourne, M/331,517, Array Service Corps, killed in action, applied through her trade union, on 2nd May, 1919, for a pension on compassionate grounds and received from him a letter, dated 27th May, 1919 (Ref. DP. 325/W., A.S.C.), stating that her case was under consideration; whether it is the case that a further letter, dated the 9th July, 1919 (Ref. G.4, Div. 2, A.S.C.), was sent to Mrs. Wybourne, stating that the matter was receiving attention; and, in view of the long delay which has already ensued, what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Sir J. CRAIG: A pension of 7s. 6d. a week has been in payment since the 10th instant. The delay, which is regretted, was largely due to the fact of the applicant having incorrectly stated that her husband and her surviving son were earning substantial wages, so that the case appeared at first sight to be one in which pension could not be granted under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Warrant.

POST-DISCHARGE MARRIAGES OF DISABLED PENSIONERS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 61.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will make allowance in respect of the wife and children of disabled men who have married subsequently to the receipt of disablement pay?

Mr. WADDINGTON: 62.
asked the Pensions Minister if he proposes to reconsider the granting of pensions or allowances to wives and dependants of ex-soldiers where the marriage takes place subsequent to discharge and the ex-soldier is suffering from a complaint contracted in Army service, and is in receipt of a pension and dies from the same complaint and the pension then ceases, leaving a widow and child without means of subsistence; and, having regard that death is caused by conditions of service, will he recommend these cases for pensions and allowances?

Sir J. CRAIG: The principle of the Pensions Warrant is that the State compensates the soldier and accepts the liabilities he was under at the date of his injury. Wives of disabled men and widows of deceased men are not admitted to the pension list if they were married after the soldier's disablement, nor are children if they were born after his discharge. To remove these restrictions from the Warrant would involve a charge upon Public Funds which might reach £30,000,000 a year.

PENSIONS MINISTRY (OVERTIME).

Major HILLS: 63.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will state the total number of hours of overtime worked in the Pensions Ministry each month during the last three months, distinguishing paid and unpaid work?

Sir J. CRAIG: The number of hours of paid overtime worked during the last three months is as follows: 99,676 in November, 80,336 in December and 147,443 in January. This overtime work was voluntarily given and was necessary to overtake arrears. The necessity is rapidly disappearing. No record is kept of the many hours of unpaid overtime worked by the higher officials of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLWICH STREET REPAIRS.

Mr. CROOKS: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether consideration has been given to the representations made by the Woolwich borough council regarding the difficulty in obtaining supplies of granite-curb for street repairs; whether he is aware that in consequence of the present
high freightage rates it is impossible to get granite-curb shipped from Guernsey, and vessels leave that port in ballast rather than bring this material at the rates offered; and whether action will be taken to secure the carriage of granite-curb at reasonable rates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): Yes, Sir. An endeavour will be made to overcome the difficulty by fixing a reasonable freight rate at which it will be fair to ask vessels to carry granite from Guernsey.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAIN FREIGHTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller the reason why directed grain freights have been raised since 1st January, 1920, to the extent of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent.; whether this increase was asked for by shipowners; will it mean an addition to the bread subsidy; and, if so, what is the approximate estimate of such increase for the year 1920?

Colonel WILSON: In view of the large and continued increase in the price of banker coal which began last summer, representations were made by shipowners that the Government rates of freight were inadequate to meet the increased costs of running. The matter was considered from time to time and voyage accounts of ships were carefully examined by the Ministry of Shipping. It became evident from these examinations that the rates were in fact too low, having regard to the cost of bunkers, the great delays to which vessels were subjected and the increased cost of loading and discharging, and certain increases in the rates have now been agreed as from 1st January last.
I am informed by the Ministry of Food that for the current financial year additional rates of freight represent an increase of the bread subsidy of £1,250,000. For the calendar year, 1920, it is impossible to give an estimate with any degree of precision so far ahead, but if the grain is to be carried throughout the year at the same rates, the best estimate that can be formed at present is that the additional cost to that Ministry will amount to £6,000,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any chance in the near future of reducing these freights in view of the fact that shipowners did not require the extra rates and in fact do not want them now?

Colonel WILSON: I have not heard of any shipowner who did not require them. The matter was carefully examined into before the increase was made and the rates will be reduced whenever possible.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I for one did not ask for the increase. Is he aware that the greatly increased charge for running steamers is due to Government control? Does he know we are paying in Liverpool £7 5s. per ton for bunker coal more than a month ago?

Colonel WILSON: Careful investigation was made into the matter. Of course my hon. Friend is under no obligation to take the higher rates: the Treasury will willingly accept the difference.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON ORE CARGOES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller, whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the continued shortage of iron-ore tonnage from Mediterranean and Spanish ports to the North-east Coast, fixtures have recently been allowed from Huelva to Rotterdam; and whether in future he will see that our own iron and steel industries are not starved and our own men thrown out of work for the benefit of Germany, which is presumably the ultimate destination of these cargoes?

Colonel WILSON: I am not aware of any recent fixtures of British vessels from Huelva to Rotterdam, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind I will have enquiries made. I need not say that the Shipping Controller has no control over vessels under foreign flags.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND TENURE (SCOTLAND).

Major W. MURRAY: 69.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Scotland will be included in the Bill providing security of tenure for tenant farmers, under certain conditions, which it is understood it is intended to introduce early this Session?

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 74.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether a special Bill dealing with security of tenure in agriculture will be introduced for Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The matter referred to in these Questions is receiving consideration, but I am not as yet in a position to make any definite statement regarding it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBRARY RATE (SCOTLAND).

Major W. MURRAY: 70.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to abolish the limit imposed upon the public' library rate in Scotland or to otherwise amend the existing rate limit?

Mr. MUNRO: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SCOTLAND (QUARRY STONE PRICES).

Major W. MURRAY: 72.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in certain Scottish burghs the local authorities are being required by the Scottish Board of Health to build houses of brick, although there are large stone quarries from two to four miles distant from these towns; whether he is aware that a large increase in the price of stone at the quarry mouth is the main cause of the action of the Scottish Board of Health; and whether, in the interests of local employment and in view of the considerations of amenity involved, he will take steps to remedy this anomalous state of matters and cause negotiations for the reduction of the prices complained of to be opened with the quarry-masters concerned?

Mr. MUNRO: I am aware that in one or two instances the Scottish Board of Health have decided that the execution of local housing schemes in stone could not be justified in view of the extra expenditure involved as compared with construction in other materials. Where the cost of building in stone is reasonable in relation to the cost of brick construction local authorities are given a free
choice. So far as the question relates to the price of stone as a building material I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for South Poplar on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHERIFF CLERKS (SCOTLAND).

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that considerable discontent prevails among the sheriff clerks and their staffs with regard to the salaries and conditions of the service, these salaries being now inadequate and there being no pensions available on retiral; and whether he is now prepared to introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on minor legal appointments in Scotland, which sat in 1911, as indicated by him in the House of Commons on 12th March, 1914?

Mr. MUNRO: I am appointing a Committee to consider inter alia the manner in which and the extent to which the proposals of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which were substantially the same as the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, should be carried into effect.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it suggested that it should be a Departmental Committee?

Mr. MUNRO: Yes it will be a Departmental Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BUTTER.

Mr. HOLMES: 75.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that grave discontent exists owing to the price asked for butter since its de-control; and what facts are in his possession which satisfy him that the forthcoming supply will be sufficient to force the present price down to the former controlled price without delay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I am aware that there is some discontent with regard to the price of home-produced butter now available. I am not in a position to estimate
its gravity. A certain amount of discontent with regard to high prices is general, and perhaps unavoidable. I have no facts in my possession which would suggest that there is any likelihood of the price of butter falling to the former, controlled price. The world price of butter is steadily advancing, and I regret that the Food Controller finds it necessary to raise the maximum retail price of controlled butter to 3s. a pound.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the hon. Gentleman any calculations to show what is the actual cost of producing British butter?

Major WHELER: Is it the fact that the controlled price of butter was put on without any idea of the cost of production but with the object of encouraging the sale of milk and not of butter?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes, the controlled price of butter has been based entirely upon the price at which it has been possible to purchase certain qualities of foreign produced butter by the consumer, while at the same time it has always been recognised that the control of butter at that price left no encouragement to the British farmer to turn his milk into butter. With regard to the cost of butter, I can only say the most careful and detailed enquiries have been made into the cost of production of milk, and unquestionably the parity price for butter as compared with the present price of milk would leave no profit on any price less than 5s. a pound.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the average price of butter in Holland and Denmark?

Mr. McCURDY: I could not say off-hand. I can merely say the controlled price is one which involves no loss to the British trader, and therefore the controlled price may be taken as indicating a price slightly in excess of the average price in foreign countries.

SUGAR.

Mr. HOLMES: 76.
asked the Food Controller if he will state the reason for the shortage of sugar in this country, having regard to the fact that it can be freely obtained in most European countries, including Germany?

Mr. McCURDY: The shortage of sugar in this country is due to a general world
shortage in supply, coupled with an increase in consumption, chiefly in America, and to the urgent necessity of improving the national credit by reducing, as far as possible, the importation of commodities produced in foreign countries. I cannot assent to the statement that supplies of sugar are more plentiful in most European countries than in the United Kingdom. The information at my disposal is to the contrary effect, particularly as regards Germany.

Mr. HOLMES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a traveller recently went on an extended tour through France, Germany and Switzerland, taking with him a supply of sugar, and that he used his own store for the first time when he arrived back at a London hotel?

Mr. McCURDY: I know nothing whatever about the adventures of the traveller in question. So far as the statistics for the whole world are concerned, and not the experience of an individual, there is no question that there is a most substantial deficit in the supply of sugar as compared with the world's normal demand.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement that the Americans have consumed 600,000 tons more sugar since total prohibition?

Mr. McCURDY: I understand the consumption of sugar in America since total prohibition has perceptibly increased. As to the precise amount, I must ask for notice.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is there any intention on the part of the Food Control Office to diminish the supplies which are given to confectioners at present?

Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is there any possibility of the Government considering the advisability of encouraging the production of English beet sugar?

Mr. McCURDY: That question should be addressed to my hon. Friend who represents agriculture.

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentlemen consult with the Minister for Agriculture as to what has become of the many thousands which have been spent in experimenting on beet sugar in the past few years?

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 78.
asked the Food Controller whether large consignments of sugar urgently needed by consumers in England have been held up for several weeks in the White Star shed at Southampton owing to the failure of the Sugar Commission to give the necessary instructions to the dock company for their disposal; and whether any steps are being taken to deal with the matter?

Mr. McCURDY: The question appears to refer to a consignment of sugar not intended for immediate consumption which was stored for some weeks at Southampton in space which was believed to be suitable for the purpose. When it was pointed out to the Commission that the space in question was transit shed space, arrangements were at once made for the removal of the sugar in question.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 79.
asked the Food Controller whether supplies of sugar from Cuba and other places, which he has refused to buy, find their way viâ America to England in the form of sweets of American manufacture, the cheapest form of which are retailed at 2d. per ounce; and whether, in view of the state of the American exchange, steps could be taken to import the sugar and to allow it to be manufactured in this country, even if it were to cost as much as 1s. a pound?

Mr. McCURDY: I understand that a certain quantity of confectionery is being imported from America, but I am unable to ascertain the country of origin of the sugar used in its manufacture. I am advised that in the present state of supplies any endeavour to purchase further sugar for consumption in this country would lead to increased demands on the part of the producers, and increase the price of sugar generally.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: From the exchange point of view is it not quite the name thing wherever the sugar originally comes from? Would it not be desirable to pay a smaller sum to America by eliminating the charge for manufacture?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes We have no desire to encourage the import of American confectionery.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIANS (ALLEGED MASSACRE).

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: (by private notice)
asked the Leader of the House
whether he can give any information with regard to the alarming statement which appeared in the "Times" this morning as to whether the Armenian population of Cilicia is confronted with a terrible crisis, that some 50,000 troops belonging to the forces of Mustapha Khamil, consisting both of Turks and Kurds, have taken advantage of the unprotected condition of the mountain districts of Cilicia to massacre the Armenians at Zeitun, Fundunjak, Furnus, and in the vicinity, and that it is reported that the total number of victims is 7,000?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to ask your ruling, Sir, whether it is in Order to quote the name of a newspaper when asking a question in the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has always been the rule of this House not to quote newspapers, but to ask whether any statement published is true. But I was unfortunately not shown the question.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend (Mr. A. Williams) has given notice of a similar question, with the addition whether there is any reason to suppose that the agents of the Lord Mayor's Relief Fund are in danger. I am sorry to say that we have no information which would enable us either to contradict or to confirm the statement which has been made. I need not say that we are in communication both with the French Government and with our representative at Constantinople, and in addition our representative there is taking every stop to make it plain to the Turkish Government that if this kind of thing goes on it will have a serious effect on the relations between the Allies and that country.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we have any representatives in these districts? Are there any Consuls or anything of that kind?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid not. The House knows that this particular district is at a great distance from any of the Allied troops; but I can assure the House that whatever can be done will be done.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is only fifty or sixty miles from the great port of
Alexandretta, and not, therefore, a very long distance from the French troops?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is further.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Very little—sixty or seventy miles at the outside.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND.

SUCCESSFUL OPERATIONS AGAINST MULLAH.

Viscount DUNCANNON: (by private notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government have any information in regard to recent operations in Somaliland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I hope that the satisfactory character of my reply will excuse its length.
Ever since the Colonial Office took over the administration of British Somali-land in 1905 the situation in the Protectorate has been one of great difficulty. From 1907 onwards hostilities by the Mullah have been continuous. Moving down from the Nogal Valley, the dervishes have raided and looted far and wide, and in 1914 even raided within musket range of Berbera itself. During the last five years their fighting policy became increasingly aggressive, and instead of limiting themselves to raiding parties on the friendly tribes, they established themselves permanently in forward posts consisting of stone forts of immense strength. Forts of this character were established at Tale, the main headquarters of the Mullah himself, at Jidali in the north-eastern part of the Protectorate among the hills overlooking the Gulf of Aden, and at Baran, cast of Jidali.
To meet the dervish aggression steps were taken in 1914 to re-form and reorganise the Somaliland Camel Corps on an increased footing. This policy was completely successful so far as dealing with raiding parties was concerned, and the defeats inflicted on the dervishes at Shimber Berris in 1914–15 resulting in the destruction of the forts there, and later at Endow and the Ok Passes, cleared dervish raiding parties once for all from
the western half of the Protectorate, which henceforward remained under settled administration. The position, however, stills remained most unsatisfactory and precarious owing to the fact that the dervishes (who still held more than half of British Somaliland) were firmly established in the eastern part of the Protectorate, particularly at Jidali, where their fortifications enabled them to threaten the coast and the friendly tribe of Warsangeli, who suffered severely on several occasions from dervish raids. Thus, in 1916, it was found necessary to station a detachment of Indian troops at Las Khorai, the chief town of the Warsangeli, in order to protect the tribe from constant dervish aggression from Jidali and Baran.
During the last few years it has become increasingly clear that the situation which has existed ever since the rise of the Mullah in 1901, and which has inflicted untold suffering on the inhabitants of the Protectorate, could only be cured by the definite and final break-up of his power. During the war an expedition against the Mullah was obviously impracticable, but a few months ago the whole situation was carefully reviewed, in the light of the experience gained in the war. It was decided that the operations should take the form of an attack from the air, followed up, if successful, by advanced patrols of mounted forces with infantry supports. These operations have now been carried out.
The air attack opened on January 21st, when aeroplanes attacked the fort at Jidali and the Mullah's camp at Medishe, inflicting heavy casualties and damage. Subsequent bombardments on January 23rd practically destroyed the camp and set it on fire, the dervishes fleeing to the hills to the north and north-west. On January 28th Jidali was occupied by the Camel Corps, which had moved up from Elafweina, the garrison having previously escaped northwards into the hills. Meanwhile, on January 24th, a force of King's African Rifles from Las Khorai had occupied Baran (most of the dervish garrison being killed), and destroyed the fort Aeroplanes co-operated throughout by reconnaissance work and by bombing the dervish forts and parties wherever found.
Information was subsequently received that on January 28th, the Mullah, together with his personal following and the
dervish leaders, left the hills north-west of Jidali making southwards. The Camel Corps took up the pursuit from Jidali on January 30th. On January 31st, aeroplanes located the Mullah's party east of Elafweina and, descending to 100 feet, bombed and machine-gunned them to good effect, scattering the party and stampeding the riding animals. Simultaneously, a tribal levy, 1,500 strong, under the command of a British officer moved eastwards up the Nogal Valley towards Tale.
On February 6th the tribal levy intercepted the Mullah's party which had been disorganised by the aerial bombardment, capturing large quantities of stock and rifles as well as the Mullah's personal effects and his office. The Mullah himself escaped into the fort at Tale. This position (which was in fact a walled town surrounded by 13 forts) had already been bombarded and set on fire by areoplanes on previous days. It was now surrounded by the tribal levy, and in spite of the enormous thickness of the fortifications and the walls, was captured by them on February 9th. The Mullah himself, with a small party of about 70 horsemen, escaped, but the rest of the dervishes in the forts either surrendered or were captured, and large quantities of stock and arms were seized.
In the meantime the force of King's African Rifles who had occupied Baran, and Naval landing parties from His Majesty's ships have been rounding up the dervish parties scattered in the hills north and north-west of Jidali and have destroyed the smaller forts established in the hills and on the coast. Here also considerable captures of rifles and of stock have been made.
The result, therefore, of the operations which have now been concluded, is that in the course of less than 3 weeks the power of the dervishes in British Somali-land has been entirely destroyed and that no organised resistance remains. The Mullah himself with a few personal followers is a fugitive, having lost the whole of his force, all his stock, and all his be longings. He may succeed in escaping his pursuers in the desert, but his prestige and his power of endangering the peace and security of Somaliland are, I believe, at an end.
It is important to note that this remarkable achievement has been secured
without bringing in large numbers of troops to the Protectorate, and I might add, in view of statements which have been made, without the co-operation of any Foreign Power.
A battalion of King's African Rifles borrowed from East Africa was the only military force specially despatched to Somaliland to reinforce the troops already serving there, i.e., the Somaliland Camel Corps and a detachment of an Indian Army battalion.
The fact that it was possible to secure these results with the comparatively small number of troops employed in a period of less than three weeks, with practically no casualties and with a minimum of expenditure, is due to the co-operation of a unit of the Royal Air Force. The moral and material effect of the aerial bombardment of the dervish positions was the vital factor in the success of the operations, without which the subsequent operations of the ground troops could hardly have been effective. For the first time, in fact, the aeroplane has been deliberately employed as the primary striking instrument, and not merely as an ancillary weapon, and the result is, I venture to think, as suggestive as it is satisfactory.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Member say if this dispenses with the necessity for the proposed railway from the coast to the interior, and does ho remember that this Mullah has very often died?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I certainly do remember the latter statement made by my hon. Friend. As regards the question of the railway, I should like notice.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the hon. Member say who was in command of these operations?

Mr. J. JONES: The Mad Mullah.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Member say whether this puts a stop to any prospective co-operation between us and the Italian Government in warlike operations in East Africa, or are there any further operations contemplated?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The general operations, involving a number of different arms, were under the conduct of the Governor of the Protectorate. The Air Force was in command of Captain Gordon. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(Colonel Wedgwood), I am not sure that any further operations will be required unless there is a possibility of the Mullah escaping.

NEW WRIT.

For County of Argyll, in the room of Sir William Sutherland, K.C.B., one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—[Captain Guest.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Walter de Freece, knight, for the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne.

NOTICES OF MOTION:

RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the present position of the Railway Superannuation Funds, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Barnett.]

PROFIT-SHARING IN INDUSTRY.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the necessity for a system of profit-sharing in our industrial system, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Holmes.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to certain matters of foreign policy, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Commonder Ken worthy.]

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES (EMERGENCY) BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

4.0 P.M.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I understand that I am not the object of very general envy in having to take my first plunge into the turbid waters of the coal controversy, but I do claim one qualification, that is, absolute impartiality as between the different disputants in the controversy. I have never worked in a coal mine myself.

Mr. J. JONES: And never intend to.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not so sure about that. I am, told there is a good deal of money to be made at it. Neither have I ever held one penny of investment in any mining company. Therefore I look upon this question from the point of view of a typical consumer. The consumers are the vastly preponderating majority of the people of this country, and have the first claim on the attention of this House. I was brought up in my early youth to believe that,
Old King Coal was a merry old soul.
I am not quite sure now whether my early instructors were not imposing upon my childish credulity, but I still have some faith that he will resume the bonhomie which used to characterise him, and that for one or two reasons. In the first place, in our Debates here everyone must have noticed the studied moderation and restraint which has characterised almost all the speeches that have been delivered on the question. That betokens a feeling of the great importance and difficulty of the question, and the strong desire not to augment our difficulties by any unwise or provocative language. Nobody has been more conspicuous in that respect than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), who opened the Debate on Wednesday last with a speech which everyone in the House must have admired. Another reason I have for being hopeful in this matter is that in that Debate, although we had acute differences expressed, those differences
were all on questions of method rather than on the objects and aims expressed by the different speakers. Several speakers spoke of the high ideals they had in putting forward their arguments in favour of nationalisation. Nobody doubts that they have those ideals. The position would be almost hopeless if the leaders of these large unions, who are so much trusted and respected, were not actuated by very high motives and ideals. But they are not the only people who have high ideals. Their ideals amount to this, that what they aim at and what according to them can only be attained by nationalisation is a spirit of national service, of duty to other people and consideration for the interests of the public. "A life of service" was a phrase used by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in the very interesting speech he made in that Debate. After all, that ideal is merely what all who profess to be and call themselves Christians are bound to hold by their faith and the teaching of their respective Churches both in public and in private life. So I say that that ideal is common to everybody. What seemed to me not to be established in that Debate was that it could only be reached by nationalisation. Indeed, it seems to me that a bad time has come upon this country if it were impossible for the British nation to do their duty to their God and to their neighbour without being chained to the stool of official bureaucracy or financed by the Treasury of this country. To come down from the high ideals that were put before us in that Debate nearer to the practical object being aimed at, I find even there that there is an immense amount of ground common to us all. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Abertillery, said in his speech that the miners were not going to work themselves out to the last ounce merely to make profits for the owner. Is there anyone in this House who does not agree with that? There we start on one piece of common ground. I believe that everybody in the House realises that this industry cannot develop itself as it should without enterprise, the encouragement of enterprise, the encouragement of invention and the enlistment of the brains of everybody concerned. I might describe those engaged in the industry as being three forms of capitalists; those who
possess the capital of brains, those who possess the capital of muscle and those who possess the capital of money. We are all agreed that we want some system which will enable each section to make all the contribution it can towards the success of the industry, not only for the sake of the industry but for the sake of the whole country, which depends so much upon it. Further, we all wish to see them having a real say in the conduct of the industry. We wish to see them able to judge for themselves what are the financial possibilities of the industry and to have the figures necessary to say what is the actual real cost of production, so that everybody may know and the thing may be plain and have no mystery about it. It will be found that most Members of the House are agreed upon that. They are also agreed, I believe, that each of these three kinds of capital should get its fair share of the profits of the industry. I do not think there is any disagreement on that point. If I am right in that, we start on a very large plateau of common ground, on which we can and ought to work together as long as it is possible. I know that a good many of the speakers opposite have spoken as if the coalowners would never agree to any such proposal. I do not know what authority or right they have for saying that. I have no authority to speak for the coalowners, but I should be very much surprised indeed if a large number of coalowners are not prepared to meet in the most friendly way any of the suggestions made in that programme which I have described as common ground to so many of us. Having said that, I hope we shall proceed to the consideration of this question with the idea that we have been rather magnifying our difficulties and understating our agreement in the past.
This Bill, the Second Reading of which I move to-day, is only the first of two Bills dealing with this question. It is absolutely necessary that it should be moved and carried as soon as possible. I do not know that I need take up much of the time of the House in dwelling upon the history leading up to this Bill. Perhaps I may briefly describe it. Control was established on coal in South Wales at the end of 1916, and in the whole country early in 1917. In 1918 an agreement was reached, between
the owners and the miners and the Coal Controller, called the Coal Mines Control Agreement, which was subsequently ratified by an Act called the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act of 1918. The object of that was to provide in some way for the distribution of the profits. At that time there was very little difference in the price of home and export coal, and if they had remained anywhere near the same there would not have been the necessity for any alteration of that agreement. But as everyone knows, the price of export coal went up enormously last year, and the effect of that on the agreement of 1918 would have been to give enormous advantages to those coalowners who by their geographical situation were able to export, and to do great injustice to those who are obliged to sell their coal inland at low prices. For that reason it was impossible that the agreement should be allowed to remain as it was. I do not think that the coalowners in any way claimed that it should be. That agreement would have also meant a serious loss to the public exchequer.
In 1919 we had the Sankey Commission, and the interim Report which recommended the Sankey wage, and the limitation of profits, and at the end of last year, in order to carry out the pledge that had been given to follow up the interim Sankey Report, the Bill called the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill was introduced into this House, and the Second Reading came on I think on the 11th December. That Bill was withdrawn because it had not very many friends and because those who represented the miners told the Leader of the House that they did not think the limitation of profits to 1s. 2d. a ton was any part of the pledge that they expected him to keep. Therefore it became necessary to find some other method of dealing with the finances of this financial year up to the end of March, 1920, and also to the time when the Coal Mines Control Agreement must naturally come to an end on the 31st August this year, and this Bill is introduced with that object. To my mind the strongest and most valid objection that was taken to what I may call the 1s. 2d. Bill was that which was put forward by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) when he said that as things stood control would entirely come to an end on the 31st March, and that no provision
had been made for regulating the industry from that time onwards, and the time was so short it was hardly possible to arrange a scheme in that time. That objection we think we are meeting now by this Bill, which gives us to the 31st August, and by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister at the earliest possible moment to introduce another Bill for the regulation of the industry generally. I regret that I am not in a position to anticipate the exact provisions of that Bill, but I think that I shall be safe in saying that whatever its precise form it will be on the lines of the general agreement which I claim exists for the better management of the coal industry, so, though I realise fully the difficulty that any hon. Gentlemen will have in expressing themselves very strongly on this Bill, because they will not have seen the other, yet as I hope and believe that we shall be able to introduce the other Bill very shortly, I would ask them not to turn their backs upon this present Bill merely because the other one is not actually in print at the present moment. It is in course of being drafted.

Mr. HOLMES: Has it gone to the Cabinet?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The outlines have been before the Cabinet; the actual draft has not yet gone before them. Those concerned are working very diligently and it is certainly our desire as much as that of the hon. Member to have it introduced at the earliest possible moment. This Bill has been described as a difficult Bill to understand, and if that is so I am afraid that it is a difficult Bill to explain. The main provisions of the Bill are to continue the Sankey wage, and to treat it as a working expense of the industry and provide for interest on increased capital in order to encourage development in the mines, and to devise a fairer plan for distributing the profits. The important clauses of the Bill are Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and the First Schedule. Clause 1 taken with this Schedule is the really important feature. The profits arising during the 17 months ending 31st August, 1920, are aggregated, and after deductions of certain expenses incidental to control and other small adjustments are to form the pool. If that pool does not exceed the sum of the pre War standards of the undertaking the profits in the pool will be distributed among the several undertakings in proportion
to their respective standards, the standards being the pre-War standard, fixed by the Finance Acts dealing with such profits, on the profits of either the two best out of three or the four best out of six years before the War.

Mr. HOLMES: And the percentage standard?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And the percentage standard, but the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into details of the Finance Act. It is essential that we should treat the main features of the Bill in the Second Reading.

Mr. HOLMES: It is very important to mention that, because under the Coal Control Agreement percentage standards were not allowed. The percentage standard was not allowed to collieries and is now going to be allowed. It is a material point in this Bill.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I know that. I never said that it was not. The profits in this pool will be distributed among the several undertakings in proportion to their respective standards, and the general aggregate of the profits so distributable is not to be less than nine-tenths of the aggregate of the standard, unless the deficiency is due to causes other than action taken by the Coal Controller after 1st January, 1920. Then if the pool exceeds the aggregate standard they will get that standard and in addition they will get one-tenth of the excess in the pool. Half of that will be distributed among the several undertakings in proportion to their respective output, the other half being allocated to those undertakings whose profits have exceeded their respective standards, the object being to meet the objection put forward to the one and two-penny Bill which was that there was no incentive to economical working in that Bill.

Mr. HARTSHORN: What about the amount of the aggregate standard?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am coming to that. And in the event of any excess, the remaining nine-tenths will be in the hands of the Controller. Clause 2 provides for creating this pool by a levy on the export collieries, and an award to the non-export, losing collieries. Clause 3 provides for the interest on increased capital. Clause 5 continues the Sankey Wage and Clause 9 repeals the Coal
Mines Agreement Confirmation Act as from the 1st April, 1919. The other clauses are mainly machinery, and I think that I have given the gist of the proposal. I will now venture on a few figures. I am aware that there are always people ready to find fault with the figures produced by the Board of Trade and their officials. There may be some reason for it, but at any rate I have come to the conclusion in the course of a rather long life that mathematics is not an exact science.

Mr. HOLMES: Government mathematics.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: You will always find an accountant who will differ from the figures of another accountant, and I should be very much surprised if the hon. Member will agree with anybody's figures in reference to the coal question. He is a great expert himself, and the forecast which he made in the discussion which we had in reference to the imposition of 6s. a ton on the price of coal was nearer the mark than any other. The figures in which there is so much discrepancy are figures which were at that time matters merely of prophecy, and for which there was very little guidance to be found, and if they were wrong, as apparently they were in this forecast, it must be remembered that it is a very different thing to prophesy from being wise after the event. It must also be remembered that if they were wrong all the experts of the Sankey Commission were wrong, for they never disputed the statement that there was going to be a great fall in the receipts from exports. I think it is a great pity to attach very great importance to figures which must depend very largely on opinion and not on figures by which you could calculate. The sort of person to deal with such figures is an experienced bookmaker who is accustomed to calculating his' chances. I am sorry to say I am not one myself, nor have we got one as far as I know amongst our very able officials at the Board of Trade. As regards output, our figures were extraordinarily correct. My right hon. Friend made a forecast about the output of coal for the calendar year 1919, and he gave two methods of calculation. One would lead him to the conclusion that it might be 228,000,000 tons, and the other that it
might be 230,000,000 tons. After some reflection he came down on the side of 230,000,000 tons. The actual figure was 229.6 millions. I call that a bull's-eye, for which the Board of Trade have not got the credit they deserve. With the estimates for the financial year 1919–1920 the independent accountant had no fault to find. It was only where it was a matter of prophecy that we turned out to be very far from the mark.
With regard to the, figures of this Bill, an hon. Member asked me to give the amount of the standard. That was £22,000,000, and if the hon. Member for North-east Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) does not succeed in entirely upsetting the calculation of the independent accountant it would appear that in this particular financial year up to the end of March the probable excess would be somewhere about £1,000,000 in the pool, and £100,000 of that would go to the owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does the £22,000,000 include?"] The £22,000,000 docs not include coke.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the hon. Gentleman give some reason why it is £22,000,000, having regard to the fact that in the aggregate it was about £18,000,000 for 1912–1913; the profits of the industry for 1912–1913 averaged about £18,000,000 and the hon. Gentleman says that £22,000,000 is now the aggregate

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the difference is probably due to the fact that the pre-war standard was a standard upon which the owners were able to make a choice of the best two out of three years or the best four out of six years, or a percentage standard. Therefore, naturally, they chose the best years they could, and that probably accounts for the difference between these figures and those of the hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn). I should like to call the attention of the House to the very small difference that there is between these figures and the figures which the colliery owners would have received under the 1s. 2d. Bill. As was stated by my right hon. Friend, and commented on by other speakers, there was a large amount of money under that Bill which would have gone to the colliery owners besides the 1s. 2d., which was calculated merely on the number of tons got. That was worked out as far as we were able to tell—these figures are only approximate—that at 1s. 2d. they
would have got 13.4 millions, they would have got by amortisation £1,000,000, miscellaneous receipts £3,000,000, refund of excess profits duty £3,000,000, and income tax relief £1,000,000. That is a total of £21,400,000, and that will be seen to differ very slightly from the amount that during this financial year they seem likely to get under this Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: What are miscellaneous receipts?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They were explained in the debate on the 1s. 2d. Bill—receipts from wagons and brick works, the rent of houses, and so on. The difference is very little. We may hope that unless there is some great alteration in export prices or in the quantity exported during the remaining five months, the amount in the pool will very considerably exceed the pre-war standard. Whatever is left in the pool will be left in the Coal Controller's hands and it will be for the Government, with the approval of this House, to decide how that money is to be spent. The Prime Minister has made one suggestion, namely, that it might be spent on the purchase of mining royalties. If the Coal Mines Control Agreement had continued, under that, as far as we are able to calculate, the colliery owners would have got a very considerably larger sum, and there would have been something between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000 for the Controller to pay. So we propose this Bill with the object of getting the finances of the period settled and preparing the way for the other Bill which is to be brought forward as soon as possible to provide for the future organisation of the mines.
I should like to say on behalf of those who have to manage the Coal Control Department how very important it is to them that this matter should be settled. I do not think hon. Members realise the extraordinary difficulties under which the Coal Control Department suffers. Members will remember that Sir Guy Calthrop, the first Controller, died in the early part of last year. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire very reluctantly, and under great pressure and only under a great sense of public duty, undertook to fill his place. There were difficulties which made it impossible then to carry on the work to the satisfaction of anyone at the head of the Department,
namely, providing all the figures required by the Sankey Commission. We have now got Mr. Duncan as our new Coal Controller. He has tackled the work with an energy and determination which I cannot too highly praise, and he is supported by a staff which is working overtime perpetually in an attempt to keep pace with the difficulty. His position is concerned not so much with the political part of the coal industry; he is really concerned with the distribution of coal as it affects the convenience of every household in this country, and on that distribution also our great industries depend for the restoration of prewar prosperity. I hope, therefore, that this measure will be passed, first of all in order to settle how the profits are to be distributed, and to give the Coal Control Department a chance of getting on with their work. I hope, too, that when it comes to the other Bill we shall find a way of going as far as we can along a path where we are all of us agreed. If it becomes necessary to differ later on then we must differ, but meanwhile we can keep along a path in which we have all reached agreement, and I hope we shall do so. I am sure that where there is a will there is a way. I am sure every body realises that not only the prosperity of this country and the comfort of the people, but the prosperity, the comfort and the restoration of the people of the whole of Europe depend upon our getting on with our work and getting out of the trouble we have had. I feel sure that Members will turn with good heart to the task of trying to meet these difficulties, and to meet them by agreement, if possible.

Mr. ADAMSON: We have had a very interesting statement from the hon. Member, and I would congratulate him upon the manner in which he has taken his first plunge into the turbid waters of the coal mine controversy. I have no intention of following him in the figures that he has given. I will leave that to others who follow me in the Debate, and in the few moments I intend to take up I will confine myself to dealing with the general points in the Bill. The measure, the Second Reading of which has just been moved, deals with a question of very grave importance to the House and the country. As a matter of fact, the present and the future of the coal trade is vital to our future development, and therefore
concerns every one of us to a very great extent. The Bill before the House deals with many millions of money, and therefore it is not a matter which only affects miners on the one hand and mine owners on the other. The Prime Minister, in the course of the Debate on Wednesday last, stated, amongst other things, that the real scheme of the Miners' Federation is one that would give control of the whole of the mines of the country to the Miners' Federation. That is a reading of the situation which I want personally to repudiate in the strongest possible way. The miners of the country have never made any such demand, and I think no one knows better than the Prime Minister that no such demand has ever been put forward on behalf of the Miners' Federation.
Let me give the House two instances which, in my opinion, prove that the miners look upon this problem from a very unselfish point of view indeed. Let us take the claim they made for an advance of wages in 1915 when a deputation from the Miners' Federation approached the then Prime Minister. They put forward a claim for an advance on the ground that the cost of living had increased, and that the miners would require to have their wages advanced to enable them to meet that increase which had taken place. But they added that if the Prime Minister could deal effectively with the increased cost of living, and could take such steps as would keep the cost of living down to something like the pre-war level, that they would be willing to withdraw their claim for an advance of wages. They pointed out in the strongest possible terms that they were of the opinion that, in the midst of a struggle such as we were then engaged in, it should not be possible for any section of the community to be able to make any profit out of the necessities of the country.
I will give another instance. Within the last month another deputation has had an interview with the present Prime Minister, and they put before him the opinion that the money being earned in the mining industry at the present time would enable a further reduction in the price of coal, and they suggested to him that the price of industrial coal ought to be reduced, and that he should take such steps as would have such a reduction given effect to in the lowering of the price
of the articles produced by those who would benefit by a reduction in the price of industrial coal, and in that way have the reduction reflected in a general decrease in the cost of living. There again you had the miners showing that they are not dealing with this question from their own point of view, but rather from the point of view of the general community, and consequently were looking at the matter in a very unselfish spirit.
It is perfectly true that the miners have a very great interest in the future of their industry, and that is only natural. Not only do they make their living in the industry in which they are employed, but they pay a big price in life and limb for the part they take in winning the coal which is so necessary for the life of the nation. No less than four of their number are killed every day, and one of their number is more or less seriously injured every three minutes. With these facts in front of the country and the House, it is very natural that the miners should take a very close and keen interest in the industries in which they are employed. At the same time, while it may be said that their share in the winning of the coal necessary for our national life and well-being means, so far as they are concerned, the lives of men, they do not look at this question entirely from their own point of view. They know that if the solution of the difficulty, namely, nationalisation of the industry, is to be given effect to, that that is a matter for the consideration of the whole nation and not a part of the nation alone. So strongly do I feel the strength of our case, that I have not the least fear of what the answer of the nation will be if our case was properly put before the country.
The first point I want to deal with in the Bill is that we have reached the stage when we must have a system of pooling in the mining industry. I do not think that under present conditions the mining industry can go along without a system of pooling. My first objection to this Bill is that it only provides for the system of pooling up to the 31st of August next. Our two chief points of objection to the last Bill were, first that the period dealt with was limited to March 31st, 1920. This Bill only extends that period to the 31st August, 1920. Our second point of objection was that the whole system of control ended on the 31st of
March, 1920, and this Bill only extends the system of control to the 31st of August, 1920. We have been told by the mover of the Second Reading of this Bill that the Prime Minister has given an undertaking that another Bill will be introduced shortly which will put matters on a sounder footing than they are under existing conditions. We have had undertakings of that sort before which did not materialise. We have had undertakings given with regard to certain measures and when the Government went closely into them they found that the difficulties were so great from their point of view that effect was not given to the undertaking.
What I think ought to have been done before we were asked to consider this Bill was that the Prime Minister should have introduced the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has told us he has given an undertaking to introduce later on. In the last Bill the profits of the owners were limited to 1s. 2d. per ton, and this Bill provides for a very substantial increase in the profits of the coalowners. I was rather interested in one part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman in which he said that while the amount fixed in the last Bill was 1s. 2d. per ton, that there were certain substantial payments made to the coalowners of the country over and above that rate. The House may remember that from these Benches, on the occasion of the last discussion of this subject, the Government were told that the amount fixed in the last Bill was nearer 2s. per ton than 1s. 2d., and that statement was emphatically denied from the Government Benches.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No.

Mr. ADAMSON: I think the last debate will prove that our statement that the Bill provided for nearer 2s. per ton being made than 1s. 2d. was denied by the Government.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what was said, and if he will look at the report of the last debate on this subject he will find that the President of the Board of Trade distinctly said that there would be considerable profits besides the 1s. 2d. per ton, and he went on to say what they were, and stated that he could not give the exact figures, but he did not deny that there were substantial profits beyond the 1s. 2d. per ton.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: I realise that the statement that has just been quoted by the hon. Gentleman was made by the President of the Board of Trade on the occasion of the last debate, but that docs not touch the point that our statement from this side, that the profit fixed in the last Bill was nearer 2s. per ton than 1s. 2d. was denied on behalf of the Government. This Bill, as I have already pointed out, provides for a very substantial increase in the profits of the coalowners. It would be very interesting if the House and the country could get the real reason from the Government as to this increase, and I think the House and the country are entitled to have the real reason. If the President of the Board of Trade is to reply later on, I think he ought to give us the real reason why such a substantial increase in the profits has been proposed. For the reasons that I have given, on the broad general aspects of the Bill, this Bill is no more acceptable to us on these Benches than the first one was, and so far as we are personally concerned, unless we can get more assurances than have already been given, we will have no alternative but to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I would like in the first place to offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure this afternoon, for the very-genuine attempt he made to explain to us what was meant by this Bill and to answer questions put to him during his speech with equal frankness. I notice he said, among other things, that the strongest objection brought against the 1s. 2d. Bill was that it wiped out of existence all control, that it cleared out of the way the system which now obtains in this industry, without putting anything in its place. That objection is as strong today in face of this Bill as it was when the 1s. 2d. Bill was before the House. The hon. Gentleman says: "We want you to accept the undertaking of the Prime-Minister that there is to be at an early date another Bill embodying the coal policy of the Government," but one is not unmindful of the fact that we have had undertakings over and over again ever since last March as to the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill embodying their coal policy. Just before the House rose for the autumn recess the Prime Minister told us that it was the
intention of the Government to introduce a scheme for trustifying the industry. Certain undertakings were to be brought into trusts, their capital concentrated, and the miners to be given representation on the directorates, and those in the main were the broad principles of their coal policy. Is that still the policy of the Government? The Prime Minister told us on that occasion that a Bill to embody that policy would be introduced in the autumn Session. The autumn Session came. We got the 1s. 2d. Bill, which was a mere temporary measure, and were then told, when we pointed out the condition in which that Bill would place the industry, that that was not intended to be the only measure but that another was to follow it. But having regard to the condition in which the industry would be placed by that Bill, and the short time available before the rising of Parliament, it was deemed advisable to withdraw that Bill, so as to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider what its general policy should be.
We come now to the new Session of Parliament, and although the Government have had this matter under consideration during the greater part of last year, we are still told that no Bill has been drafted, and what guarantee have we that when the Bill is drawn it will be of such a character as will command the support either of the Labour party or of this House or any section of the House? We are asked in this Bill to clear out of existence all the power of control, or at any rate to wipe out of existence the agreement which makes control effective. We do not know what is to take its place, but we are told, as we have been told repeatedly in the past, that another Bill is to be produced. I am not going to emphasise or lay any stress at all on the difference between the financial provisions of this Bill and the 1s. 2d. Bill. We did not oppose that Bill either because the 1s. 2d. was too high or because it was too low; we opposed it for an entirely different consideration. We are not opposing this Bill on the ground of it being £22,000,000 plus a tenth of any excess profits. We may have views as to whether that is fair or not, but it is not upon that ground that we are opposing this Bill to-day. We realise that some basis must be established for the closing of the accounts for the present financial
year. I understand that some of the coalowners are being asked to make grants on account to the Exchequer out of profits which they have due to the Exchequer. I am told that cheques for very substantial amounts are being paid on account, and I am told that some of the colliery companies have hundreds of thousands of pounds standing in their banking accounts waiting for the accounts to be made up so that they can hand the amounts over to the Exchequer. That, of course, is anything but a satisfactory situation, and legislation that will merely meet that situation and enable the Coal Controller to close the accounts for last year is a desirable thing. I think we shall all agree, in addition to which, whatever are the financial provisions of this Bill, they are merely temporary, and a mere matter of a few millions one way or the other for this year does not interest us at all. It leaves us cold, and we are not concerned with it.
That is a matter for this House and the country, but we are very concerned about the future policy in regard to this industry, and we do not know what it is to be. I explained the last time that the matter was being discussed—and it is the one fact the House will require to grip if the coal problem is to be dealt with successfully—that during the war we have to a very considerable extent nationalised the working conditions and the wage arrangements, and any attempt to apply private enterprise economics to the mining industry in the future is bound to lead to disaster, and we want to know how the Government intend to get over the situation that has been created, I venture to say that had that 1s. 2d. Bill been carried, a few weeks from now we should have had such chaos as we have never seen in any industry in this country. I hope this House will decline to pass this Bill until the Government bring down to the House their coal policy, not merely for this temporary period, but for the future. Let us know what is to be the basis upon which this industry is to proceed. I think every complaint we made about the last Bill is embodied in this Bill, and the only thing that has been done to meet all the objections raised is to extend the period from the 31st March to the 31st August.
I want to deal with two or three of the provisions of this Bill that I regard as of considerable importance. I notice that among other things, in estimating the
profits of the industry, no other department than that concerned with the production of coal is to be taken into account. I do not know whether the House is aware that colliery owners in this country are consuming about 20 per cent. of the total industrial coal consumed in the country. Colliery companies owning steel works and other kinds of undertakings consume about one-fifth of the coal that is consumed for industrial purposes, and according to this report which we have received from the independent accountant, and which I shall deal with in a few minutes, the coalowners are supplying to themselves, as manufacturers, coal below cost price. In the estimate of the income, receipts from the sales of coal, 24½ million tons are embodied in this report at 20s. 5d. a ton, and the cost of producing every ton of this coal is a higher figure than that. Are we to have an arrangement and embody in a Bill a provision which will enable colliery owners to sell 20 per cent. of the coal that is consumed in industries to themselves below cost and allow the profits of those departments to go without any consideration at all?

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The House has no copy of those accounts, and so we cannot check your figures.

Mr. HARTSHORN: If the House has not got a copy of them, it can get it in the same place as I got it, and that is the Vote Office. There are printed copies there, and we have been informed for some time on the pink paper that copies are available. That is one thing I should like to call attention to as one of the provisions of this Bill that, in my opinion, is very unsatisfactory. It is not sufficient merely to say that their profits are to be limited to pre-war standard, plus one-tenth of excess. There is no inducement for them to sell to themselves as manufacturers at a high price, if the profits which they get as coal owners are not to be retained. It is very much better for them to sell below cost price to themselves as manufacturers and what they lose on the round abouts pick up on the swings. That seems to me to be the purpose of this Bill. On the last occasion I pointed out that, although we had four reports from the Coal Commission, each report differing very considerably upon important matters, whatever report was signed,
they were all agreed, miners and mine-owners, and independent men of all sections, that one of the essentials to peace in the mining industry is a genuine publication of the facts relating to that industry. This Bill contains the provision again for locking up all the information in the box and sealing it down. Have we not had enough, during the past six or nine months in this House, of the guesswork that has been taking place in relation to the mining industry? It is high time it came to an end. We have had nothing but guess-work up to date, and there is nothing but guess-work pure and simple here.
The Miners' National Executive met the Prime Minister about a fortnight ago. We wanted to know what the Government; proposed to do with the big margin of profit in the mining industry. We wanted to know as to what we considered to be a margin of seventy odd millions on the year's working from July, 1919, to July, 1920. The newspapers bewildered the British public by reporting a statement by Mr. Smillie that there was a margin of £70,000,000 in the industry, and then getting this report showing a margin of £6,800,000. The public do not understand that we made an estimate on the year on which the original six shillings estimate was based, from July to July, and we have been working on that period all along. But when we met the Prime Minister we wanted to know what really the Government intended to do in this matter, and he said, "I have got independent accountants at work. I want their report. You can hardly expect me to accept your statement that there is a margin of £70,000,000. I want, in the first place, to find out if there is a margin, and, if there is a margin, to find out what is the extent of it. When we know that, we shall be able to determine what is to be done with it." We agreed that that was a reasonable position for him to take up, and we said we would wait for the report. We knew at the time that when it came it would contain nothing, and we have not been disappointed. I think in the course of the next few days we shall be meeting the Primo Minister again on the same question. We are going to meet the Prime Minister again on our estimates and on our figures, and I say the Prime Minister has nothing at all with which to reply to us. Mr. Smillie will be telling a
conference of miners that there is from £70,000,000 to £80,000,000 margin on the mining industry for the year from July to July, and the miners will believe him. If he is wrong he is not to blame, because it is Mr. Hodges in the main who works out these estimates. We shall make the same statement and say we are correct. If the Prime Minister says it is not correct, if his experts tell him that these are not substantially correct estimates, we may find ourselves up against a very serious situation arising out of the lack of definite ascertained facts. That is the position to which we are driven. Why cannot we have the facts of this industry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The facts of the future or the facts of the present?

Mr. HARTSHORN: You have got embodied in this Bill a provision again that information shall be supplied by the coal-owners to the Board of Trade, that that information shall be locked up and nobody have access to it, or, if they do have access to it, they must be sworn to secrecy. That is no good to us. I hope this House will insist in the interests of the nation, that the facts of the mining industry shall be made public It is not a bit of use for some people to be saying that coalowners are making a fine thing out of the industry, and for the coal-owners to say "We are not getting it," and then we say there is an enormous margin, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is not getting it, and then someone comes along and says, "The miners are cracking a fine old crust," whereas the miners say they are worse off than they were before the War. There are no public facts to contradict any of these things, and we have been guessing all through. Let us look at the report which the accountant has issued. In July last we had a White Paper which was the basis of the ascertained facts for the quarter ending September, 1918, and the facts which have been ascertained were these: that the output for the quarter was at the rate of 228,000,000 tons per annum, that the number of men employed was 961,000 and that the profit was 3s. 7d. a ton. On that ascertained information the Board of Trade made certain guesses, and when the independent accountant was put on he was asked to go back and examine, not the facts to-day, but such data as was available last July, and make
a report as to whether he thought the Board of Trade made proper guesses last July. That is what he has been asked to do and that is what he has done. The first thing he did was to take the ascertained facts and see if they were correctly ascertained. He said: "No, instead of 228,000,000 tons being the correct figure, it ought to be 218,000,000: instead of the number of persons employed being 961,000, it was somewhere in the region of 930,000." Naturally all guesses on a wrong estimate are bound to be wrong, and so he started off by providing that the Board of Trade estimate as to wages was £7,000,000 wrong. Then he says: "If I had had this information before me I should have guessed differently in respect of several other things. The President of the Board of Trade guessed that we should have 35,000,000 tons of export bunker coal at 35s. a ton. If I had had the figure before me at the time, and I had been asked to guess"—of course he used the word "estimate," not "guess"—"I should have said that we should have an export volume of 38,000,000 tons at 48s., and instead of guessing the income at £61,000,000, as did the President, I should have guessed it would have been £91,000,000."
That is what he said he would have estimated had he been in possession of the information in July last upon which the Board of Trade made their estimate, but he does not say that is what he would estimate to-day. As a matter of fact, his report contains up-to-date information as to volume and price of export which shows that if he were going to estimate to-day he would not estimate 38,000,000 tons at 48s. a ton, but he would estimate about 48,000,000 tons at nearly 60s. a ton, and instead of estimating £91,000,000 income from that source he would estimate about £130,000,000 odd. That is in this report. Look at it, and study it for yourselves. That is all we are given, and that is what the Prime Minister will be meeting us upon when we meet in a few days' time. Then he goes on to deal with the reduction of 10s. a ton, and there he says he. is taking from March to March. He takes the estimate prepared by the Coal Control Department for that period. I would like the House, without any comment, just to take note of these estimates, and see what it thinks of this way of collecting
information upon which to form a sound judgment. They start off by finding out what the income is to be for the year. It is an estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1920. They show the wages for the year to be £220,000,000. How do they find out that figure? They go back to the year before last, the December quarter, and in effect they say this: That quarter's wage bill was £40,000,000, that is, at the rate of £160,000,000 a year. If it were £160,000,000 in 1918, it is sure to be more in 1919. Put £60,000,000 on to the wage bill. It is true they do talk about so many men being in the industry, and there being 100,000 women and boys, and they guess 100,000 women and boys would have as much wages as 50,000 men, and upon that sort of basis they build up and add £60,000,000 to the wage bill of 1918.
Then they take the cost for timber and stores in December, 1918, and they say for that quarter it was £9,377,000, which is approximately £37,000,000 for the year. They say, "We will dump another £6,000,000 on to that, because surely it will cost more in 1919 than 1918," and so they make it £43,000,000. There is not a word or a figure in this document from beginning to end to justify any of these additions. They may be all right; they may be excessive, or they may be below the mark, but there is not a figure or argument to justify or explain the basis upon which these estimates are made. Then there are other costs. In 1918 they were at the rate of £15,000,000. "Put a couple of millions on that and make it £17,000,000." Then we have got one very interesting item in this estimate. I notice there £4,000,000 are put in for capital adjustments under the Finance Act, and this is the note relating to it:—"The Capital in the industry is estimated to have increased by 30 million pounds net, of which 12 per cent. would be £3,600,000. Private firms are entitled to 14 per cent. The total may be taken to the nearest million as 4 million pounds. What about this 30 million pounds increased capital? Who has subscribed it? Where has it been spent? Where is the development resulting from it? Not a word, not a syllable, not the remotest indication is given as to why that figure is in, but they guess that for this financial year there is going to be 30 millions more of capital in the industry, requiring a further 4 millions of interest on it. I do not wonder that they have made
the margin down to 17 millions in this estimate. If they had only gone on guessing a little longer they would have made it balance nicely. But this is the estimate of the Board of Trade upon which the 10s. reduction took place! That is the estimate placed before the chartered accountants, and this what they say about it:
The estimates "—
these are they which I have just been reading—
are on the whole fair and reasonable deductions from the data which are available.
But mark, although they say what they do about this estimate, they put in an estimate of their own for this very same period—March. You get that in the document if you care to look for it. There you find these differences. In the one estimate the report says it is fair and reasonable to place the output for the year at 224,000,000 tons, but the accountants puts in another showing an estimated output of 230,000,000 tons. Just fancy! Here we are getting a Report six weeks before the end of the financial year. The output comes out week by week, and yet we are getting two estimates published on February 9, seven weeks away from the end of the financial year, with a difference of 6,000,000 in the two estimates! In the one we get a wage bill of £220,000,000; in the other the figure is £225,000,000. In the one we get an export of 518 millions: in the other we get 49 millions. In the one we get 172 million tons for home consumption; in the other 181 millions. In the one we get one million for contingencies; and in the other two millions for contingencies. I could go on in this way. Although they say that the Board of Trade estimates are fair and reasonable, there are no reasons given why they made the estimates, and the accountants do not begin to give a reason why they have put in a revised estimate. They simply put these figures in and do not say a simple, solitary word about them. That is what we are getting under the present system of locking everything up in a box. Although the accountants have not estimated on data available to-day they put data into their report. We can make our own estimate and that data will substantiate to the full the estimates we have been making all along.
The independent accountant says that 217 million tons was a fair estimate. I
will undertake to say that there is not a man in Britain to-day, who knows up-to-date output, that would not say that, although we have had more strikes since that estimate of 217 millions than in any year since 1912, and we have had the railway strike, or than ever happened in the history of the country before; although we can have a three weeks' national strike in the mining industry, or if you like to put it so, go on holiday for three weeks and not produce a single ton of coal, we would have more than 217 millions. We have not long to wait before the actual facts are published to see whether what I am saying is or is not correct. We get all this volume of guesswork, and now we have to try and negotiate upon it. Under the control agreement, the coalowners are under an obligation to supply to the Controller all the information about charges, prices of pit wood, prices of stores and other costs. It is all put on forms and has to be sent in 60 days after the end of the quarter. Two months are allowed the owners to send in their quarterly return. With the staff available at the Control Department surely they ought to be able to tabulate that information in a month, and we ought to have published, three months after date, the actual accounts of the undertakings of the industry. If that had been done, instead of the accountants guessing, as they have done, they would be able to say, as to the March, June, or September quarters of 1919, the actual money paid in wages, the actual amounts paid for wood, stores and so on, that they have amounted to so much, and there you have the cost of production! This information ought to be available to the public. It is not. Now we are told that the same old policy is to be pursued not merely from now up to August 31st but that this is the permanent policy of the Government; that it is to continue after the other provisions of the Bill have ceased to have effect.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): That is not so; a new Bill will be introduced.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It does not matter whether a new Bill is introduced or not. This Bill says—and there are plenty of lawyers here who will contradict me if I am incorrect—that this Act shall "be deemed to have had effect as from the
1st day of April, 1919, and shall continue in force until 31st day of August, 1920… provided that this limitation on the duration of the Act shall not affect the operation of Sections 7 to 10." You get from 7 to 10 references to the secret Clauses and secret information which is embodied in the Second Schedule (Part II.) of the Act. This is not repealed by the provisions of this Act; when we get to the end of the period this secret thing goes on still. The position of the Labour party is that we are opposed to this Bill because it is a piecemeal policy which carries us nowhere. It is wiping out of existence the only machinery for carrying on the industry. We do not know what is taking place. Whatever is taking place, this Bill provides for a continuance of the secret policy of the Government which we think is bound to be fatal to the best interests of the industry and of the country. I hope when we go into the Lobby to-night we shall have the support of all those who believe in publicity, in getting to know the facts; that we shall have their support and presence in the division Lobbby.

Sir EVAN JONES: I hope the hon. Member who has just sat down will not object to me describing him as the mathematical wizard of the Miners' Federation. He has a somewhat remarkable faculty for manipulating figures. He makes considerable play, not so much with the estimates upon which the independent accountants were called to report, but with the estimates made by the independent accountants themselves. The hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I suggest that after he leaves the House tonight he should read carefully through the independent accountants' Report before he definitely makes up his mind as to what it is that they have said. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to certain figures by the independent accountant, which he interpreted to mean that 24,000,000 tons of coal were being used by the colliery proprietors to-day at a cost less than the cost of production; and he quoted from the report the figure of 20s. 5d. It is perfectly true that the figure of 20s. 5d. appears in the Report, but the hon. Gentleman certainly cannot have read the Report itself, because the independent accountant states the point most clearly. The hon. Member's observation that this 20s. 5d. relates to today
is not so; the figures appertain to the September quarter of 1918 and not prices at which coal has been sold to-day.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I did not say anything in contradiction to that. What I did say was that the cost of production of the coal to which the period referred was above that price.

Sir E. JONES: I think I have properly stated the matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to the accountant's estimate of what the likely surplus would be at the end of March, 1920.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Certainly!

Sir E. JONES: In discussing the basis upon which the independent accountants arrived at their figure, he gave us an example of the quality of his arithmetic. He said they estimated that 24 million tons of coal were being disposed of by the colliery proprietors for ancillary purposes to-day at a price of 20s. 5d. a ton. That is quite contrary to what the Report states. I do not know that I am far wrong in suggesting that if that is the quality of the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, the House had better be wary of accepting the figures he produces.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that for the period, September, for which these figures relate, that coal was sold at less than the cost of production?

Sir E. JONES: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is not the point.

Mr. HARTSHORN: That is the point I made.

Sir E. JONES: The point upon which my hon. Friend was talking was that today coal was being used by the colliery proprietors for ancillary purposes at a price of 20s. 5d. per ton. He charged the independent accountant with stating this, and he is entirely wrong. One other example of the hon. Member's peculiar qualities in respect of arithmetic. He made great sport in comparing the two estimates made by the independent accountant, in one of which it is stated that they take 224,000,000 tons as the output for the year ending March, 1920, and in the other they give 230,000,000 tons. Again, the hon. Member has not properly read the report, and I would suggest that he should read it for the sake of his arithmetic
and take it home with him to-night The independent accountants state that the estimate for the year ending March 31st, 1920, might be arrived at in various ways. They say by arriving at it in one manner, which they describe, the output might be 230,000,000 tons, and by arriving at it in another manner, which they describe, the output might be 224,000,000 tons, and they say, as plainly as the English language could say it, that for the purpose of this calculation—

Mr. HARTSHORN: Which calculation?

Sir E. JONES: The calculation of the estimate that the hon. Member was talking about when he made this charge. They say for the purpose of this calculation "we have taken the figure of 224,000,000 tons."

Mr. HARTSHORN: That second estimate was given in reply to a request laid before them.

Sir E. JONES: The hon. Member has really been unable to find any particular fault with the Bill now before the House and has gone into by-paths in order to create an impression in the House of a similar character as on two other occasions he has previously done. His objections and his statements throughout were irrelevant to the last degree to the Bill before the House on Second Reading. His arguments were simply directed against the old system. I do not wish to say that everything in this Bill is what it ought to be, but the Bill docs undoubtedly meet a case for which there is urgent need of settlement in the interests of the industry itself and in the interests of the country, and, if I may say so, in the interests of the men. It is only a Bill to deal with the finances of the industry for a certain period. It prejudices nothing with regard to the future. I would like to emphasise what the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said when he described the lamentable results which the holding of these matters in suspense is having on the administration of the coal control. When owing to the lamentable death of the then Coal Controller I for a time undertook to deal with this matter, one of the first things I was up against was the fact that the whole administration of this control was turned upside down by the Coal Commission. The heads of all the principal sections of the Coal Control
Department were engaged in connection with the Coal Commission. The result was that the control, which was of such vital importance at that time, was suffering seriously in its administration owing to the time taken up in dealing with all the demands of the Coal Commission. Although I have not had the experience myself in connection with the work of examination by the firm of independent accountants, I can only surmise that the fact that the administration of the Accountants' Department of the Coal Control was placed at the service of the independent accountants for a period of two months must have had an almost similar effect to what happened in connection with the Coal Commission. I would urge the House for the sake of good administration, and for the sake of giving assistance to men who are trying to do their best in this matter, to pass the Second Reading of this Bill without any further delay, and give those men a chance to wind up and to settle the accounts which it is highly prejudicial to the industry to have kept open so long.
6.0 P.M.
I should like to draw attention to one or two points of detail in connection with this Bill, not in a spirit of criticism but in a spirit which I hope may ease the passage of it very much, if those points are properly cleared up on Second Reading. I would point out first with regard to the method of administering the guarantee making up any deficiency below nine-tenths of the pre-war standard, that I think it would be advantageous to the House if we had before us very clearly what are the actual figures from five years before the war in connection with the relative standards. I believe that the Leader of the Labour party complained that they did not know enough as to what those relative standards really meant to be able to properly digest the true meaning of the proposal. The figures which? am going to mention to the House are derived altogether from the published figures of the Board of Trade. I have assumed that the prewar profit standard might be taken as £23,000,000. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill gave the figure as £22,000,000, and for that reason a slight correction in the figures which I give may be necessary. It was put in evidence before the Sankey Commission that in the five pre-war years the aggregate of
profit of all the mines in the United Kingdom was £13,000,000 and on an output of 270,000,000 tons, which was equal to 11½d. per ton. But it is generally understood, and I believe it is agreed, that 1½d. of that amount belong to the profits of ancillary undertakings. That is not so in the figure of £22,000,000, but it is so in the figure of £13,000,000 mentioned at the Sankey Commission. That gives the average ton profit for the five prewar years of coal trading companies as 10d. per ton. In the two years 1912–1913 the corresponding figures given at the Sankey Commission were 18.6 million pounds profit on an output of 274,000,000 tons, giving a ton profit of 1s. 4½d., less again 1½d. Taking the pre-war standard as £22,000,000, the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary, and taking the output as 274,000,000 tons, which would be the output of the best two or four years, that gives an average ton profit of 1s. 7d. on the £22,000,000. This Bill guarantees the coalowners their profits up to nine-tenths on their pre-war standard. Therefore, assuming that the aggregate profits of the coal industry for the period of the operation of this Bill should fall below the pre-war standard the Exchequer undertake, or the Coal Controller, which means the same thing, to be responsible for the making up of the total profits of the industry of that period to £22,000,000 less 10 per cent. So that we have there a certainty of a profit of £20,000,000 for the year 1919–20 on an output not of 274,000,000 tons but an output of 230,000,000 tons, which is equal to a ton profit of 1s. 9d. We have an average during the five pre-war years of a profit of 10d. per ton and during 1912–13 of 1s. 3d., and under the pre-war standards and the guarantee given by the Government of 1s. 9d. per ton. It gives a guarantee equal to 120 per cent. above the five pre-war years, 46 per cent. above the years 1912–13–14, and 10 per cent. above the pre-War standard in the case of the ton profit instead of the reduction of 10 per cent. in the case of the total sum. Those profits are calculated after allowing for interest on the additional capital employed subsequent to the commencement of the War. Therefore it is a clear guarantee, and I do not think that any complaint can be made by the owners. On the other hand, it does represent a
fair and just effort for dealing with this problem. There is, however, some cause for exception in the fact that output has not been taken into account in determining this guarantee. We have given the same guarantee for an output of 230,000,000 tons as for an output of 270,000,000. The effect of not making an adjustment for output is considerably more marked when it comes to distributing the guarantee among the individual undertakings. I will give one example how it will operate, because I am going to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that it would be well for this point to be considered before the Bill goes into Committee. It is a point which will be capable of very considerable argument in Committee, and it might ease the passage of the Bill through Committee if a statement were given to the House on the Second Reading.
I will give a concrete example of the effect of this non-adjustment for difference of output. I will take the case of two undertakings, A and B, each of whose pre-War output was 10,000 tons. Their standard—we will say that they had a profit of 2s. per ton—will be £1,000 in each case. We will assume that for many reasons undertaking A has only produced half its pre-War output and that its output for 1920 is 5,000 tons. We will assume further that undertaking B has doubled its output and that instead of 10,000 tons it is 20,000 tons. Under the system which this Bill provides for distributing the guarantee, each of these undertakings will obtain its pre-War standard of £1,000 less 10 per cent. In other words, colliery A, which was making 2s. per ton profit before the War and which has allowed its output to go down to one-half, is presented with a profit of 3s. 8d. per ton, and colliery B, which by its enterprise or careful working has doubled its output, is penalised by having its profit reduced from 2s. to 11d. per ton. On the surface, it does not appear to be fair that a colliery which by carelessness, let us say, has allowed its output to be reduced by one-half should be made a present of nearly double its pre-War profits, whereas a colliery which has doubled its output is penalised by having its profits reduced by more than 100 per cent. I * would like the right hon. Gentleman to take that point into consideration when he is replying.
There is one other point in connection with the operation of this guarantee which the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill mentioned but did not explain. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 states that the deficiency below the pre-War standard shall be made good if it has been caused by any order, regulation, or direction issued by the Controller or by the Board of Trade after January 1st, 1920. The operation of this Bill extends from April 1st, 1919. According to the wording of that clause, therefore, if the Board of Trade have given any particular order between April 1st, 1919, and January 1st, 1920, which causes a deficiency in the working of the coal industry, it is not a reason which enables the Coal Controller to make the deficiency good by his guarantee. Within this period two very vital orders were given. The order for the Sankey wage was given between April 1st, 1919, and January 1st, 1920, and, according to that clause, it will not be relevant for the Coal Controller to make up the deficiency caused by the payment of the Sankey wage. I am quite sure that is not meant, but from the way in which the clause is drafted it appears to me that such would be its effect. Again, within the same period, the President of the Board of Trade made a present of 10s. per ton to the consumers of domestic coal in this country, and, according to the way in which the clause is drafted, it will not be relevant for the Coal Controller to take that into account in making up the amount of his guarantee.
Those are points which arise on the method of applying this guarantee, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them in his reply. There is only one other point to which I wish to draw attention. The Independent Accountant estimates that for the year 1919–20 there will be a surplus of £6,000,000 after allowing a profit to the owner of 1s. 2d. per ton. When the accounts come to be made up and the owners have to be paid their guaranteed amount of £20,000,000, this surplus of £6,000,000 will not only be wiped out but it will leave a deficiency of £2,000,000. Under the Bill there is a guarantee of £20,000,000. The very clear inference from the estimate for 1919–20 is that the total profits of the industry have been £19,000,000, because they say that there is £13,000,000 for the owners and a surplus of £6,000,000. Therefore there is a total profit of
£19,000,000. The Government, however, undertake to pay £20,000,000. Consequently, in addition to the £6,000,000 surplus being wiped out, there is £1,000,000 which they will have to pay. Those are the points which I desire to bring before the House, not in any spirit of criticism but in the hope of making easier the passage of this Bill, which, in my opinion, it is so important to carry through without delay.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN: There are one or two points in connection with this Bill on which I should like to say a few words. Under the Bill the owners are to have what is called the standard profit or a certain percentage of profits. There are some cases, particularly in my own constituency in South Staffordshire, where this percentage standard acts with great hardship. I will give one instance. We have a small pit where a man has bought seven acres of coal which is very shallow. He has opened the pit since the commencement of the War at a capital cost of £3,000. He expects it to yield 42,000 tons per annum for six years. That means that his capital is £3,000, and according to the percentage standard he will get a profit of £360 per year. Under the provisions of this Bill he might get as much as £660 on his capital expenditure. There are many cases of a like character. There are cases where large undertakings which made no profits before the war and which have their capital not in ordinary shares, but in debentures. I know of one large colliery which has been laid out at a cost of £1,000,000. But of the capital £500,000 is in debentures. They only get the 12 per cent. on the £500,000, and 12 per cent. on half the capital is not sufficient; some allowance ought to be made for increased output. Colliery owners ought to have some consideration in that respect. I suggest an Amendment to the effect that in cases where the Controller considers that hardship is inflicted on any particular colliery, he may, after consultation with the owner, fix a standard for that particular colliery according to the particular circumstances. That would not alter the principle of the Bill, but it would simply ensure that there would be no hardship in those particular cases.
I do not wish to answer the criticisms of the speakers from these Benches. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend is quite
capable of taking care of himself. The hon. Member who spoke last (Sir E. Jones) complained in regard to this Bill that there is no inducement as regards output. But may I point out that this is practically a retrospective Bill and, speaking as a coalowner, it will not stop anybody getting output. The owner is get ting just as much profit whatever the output may be, because most of the time covered by this Bill has already expired, it has only five or six months to run, and it would not be worth any mineowner's while to upset the working of his seams for such a purpose. Therefore we need not consider this question of output, because it does not materialise under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke first in this Debate, said he was glad that this pooling of finance was taking place in the industry. I, too, may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that at last the Government are working on these lines. If we did not have some pooling of this sort the industry could not pay its way at all under the Coal Control agreement, under which we are acting until this Bill has passed. People who make very large profits in the export of coal would, in the ordinary course of events, keep 60 per cent., the other 40 percent, going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereas under this Bill the Controller, on behalf of the Government, gets all the excess profits into the pool, and thereby is enabled to pay for the reduction in the price of coal of 10s. which was made last autumn. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that some pool of this sort should exist, so that the profits can be pooled in order that the Board of Trade may pay its way. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a very considerable increase in what is allowed under this Bill, compared with what was allowed under the 1s. 2d. Bill. But if I remember aright, the standard profits amounted to £22,000,000, while the owners received £21,400,000 under the 1s. 2d. Bill. There is, therefore, not much substance in the right hon. Gentleman's contention that we are getting much more, because the amount is, I think, only £600,000 for the whole industry.
My hon. Friend near me, who is a lightning calculator, found fault with the Government because he said the Prime Minister promised them a Trustifying Bill, and he seemed to object because such a Bill had not been brought
forward. But as far as my memory serves me the reason why the Government did not carry that proposal through was based upon the expressed opinions of the Miners' Federation which were decidedly against it, and I do not think, therefore, it is fair to attack the Prime Minister for not keeping that particular pledge, because his failure to do so was due entirely to the action of the Miners' Federation. I may candidly admit that the owners likewise were not anxious for it. The hon. Gentleman raised a point with regard to composite undertakings—that is to say cases where mines and steel works are under the same ownership. He complained that the owners in these cases were sending 20 per cent., or one-fifth, of their industrial coal to the steel and iron works, with the result that the profits which should have gone into the pool went to the steel works. As owner of a colliery with steel works I should like to say there is not a word of truth in that statement, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will bear me out, because the prices are fixed by the Controller of the Board of Trade, and any company which was providing coal from a colliery for its steel works under the prices fixed by the Board of Trade would be liable to severe penalties. Therefore, there is nothing in the contention of the hon. Gentleman that such things are happening, and I do not think it is fair in this House to make such a charge against the good faith of the management of the coal mines.
The hon. Member also made a point about secrecy. Everything, he said, is locked up in the books. I should like to remark this that if he had taken the trouble to read the proposals of the mine-owners which were put before the Sankey Commission by Lord Gainford, he would know there is no desire on the part of the mineowners for any secrecy of this sort. The proposals of Lord Gainford, who represented the Mining Association of Great Britain, distinctly laid it down that the Mining Association would advocate that there should be district councils, consisting of men and masters and consumers, and that regular audits should be made, so that everybody might know what was going on. We do not want secrecy. I tell my hon. Friends on these benches, that is the considered opinion of the Mining Association. We are quite willing if hon. Gentlemen will join with us in the future, after the lapse of this Bill,
to do our best to run the industries together for the benefit of the country and there need be no secrecy at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not put it in the Bill"?] I am simply giving my view. After all, this is not finality, the Government have another Bill under which, I understand, they will provide for combinations of masters and men, so that secrecy will be done away with. You only need have a little bit of patience.
An hon. Member uttered some reflections on the increase of capital and on the large percentage that is going to be allowed to mineowners upon it. He mentioned £30,000,000 as the increase, and said he could not make out where this additional capital had come from. I can only say that it is perfectly clear if you have your wages bill greatly raised, if you have the cost of material necessary for carrying on your business trebled, you want more money in order to finance the concern, and to my certain knowledge, where collieries before the war required £10,000 to finance them, at the present time they require £20,000. That is my personal experience, and, therefore, it is futile to find fault with this arrangement with regard to increased capital. Some of the owners have had to issue more shares; others have found the money out of their reserves; and it was a good thing that they had reserves upon which they could fall back. I do not think the miners' representatives ought to find fault on that score. After all said and done, it is only what every other trade gets. The miners are not being treated as other trades have been. On extra capital introduced since the commencement of the war and employed in any industry other traders get a very large percentage, and I do not see why the coal trade should have been treated differently.
I have been reading the speeches of Mr. Hodges and other miners' leaders in the country where they accuse us of getting enormous profits. All I can say in answer to that is, we are getting our standard rate, and we have been promised that if there is a surplus over and above that rate after all expenses have been paid, we shall receive 10 per cent. of the balance. There is no other trade in the country which has been treated as we have been. Every other trade in the country with a standard like ours, get interest on increased capital together with depreciation and everything else,
and then they receive 60 per cent. of the excess profits at the present time. If, as some people in the papers prophesy, the Excess Profits Tax is going to be done away with this year, they will get the whole lot, unless some other tax is invented which will take it away from them. Under the circumstances I think many of the contentions of the hon. Member who is so good at figures cannot be borne out. I am sure my right hon. Friend when he replies will hit the nail on the head much better than I can. The owners of the mines will be only too glad to meet the representatives of the miners at any time in order to work together in devising plans for the future of this industry, and I hope in the future we shall be able to work together harmoniously as well as we did.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
The Bill is divided into two parts. The first deals with the profits earned from 1st April, 1919, to 31st August, 1920, and states the methods by which those profits shall be divided. The second part re-enacts a large portion of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act of 1918, which is repealed as on 1st April, 1919. With regard to the first part the great objection to the Bill which was introduced and withdrawn last year was that it put a definite limitation on profits. The present Bill removes that objection and, while it gives a certain amount of additional profit to the coalowners, the difference, considering the capital involved, is not of great importance. The second part of the Bill is one of great concern. It continues until 31st August of this year a system of coal control which is neither nationalisation nor private ownership, but imposes upon the community all the disadvantages of both, with few of the advantages of either., It is an impossibility for coal control to cease on 31st August, 1920, and it will be a simple matter, when the Summer Recess comes, to include it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and so continue it in operation. To-day, therefore, it is a matter of urgent consideration whether it is to the advantage of the community that this system of coal control should continue for a day longer.
It will probably help us in our consideration if we trace the history of the coal industry since the assembling of this Parliament. The dangerous situation twelve months ago was eased by the appointment of the Sankey Commission, and when the Chairman's Interim Report was received it was accepted by the Government in the spirit and in the letter. By this we are told the Government meant that an increase of wages and a reduction of hours would be granted, and that the coalowners' profits would be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton. Unfortunately, the language used by certain Members of the Government was so indefinitive that the Miners' Federation gained the impression that if the Chairman's final Report recommended nationalisation the Government would accept that Report also. How often it happens that a country's troubles arise because clever men are not always' clear. Of the recommendations contained in the Interim Report, those concerning wages and hours were carried out administratively, but the limitation of profits required legislation. Delays are always dangerous, and the fact that the necessary Bill was not introduced until last November, and was then withdrawn, and is now before us to-day in another form, has had a very serious effect upon the coal industry. For nearly a year the coalowners have been under the impression that their profits were to have a fixed limitation, and consequently they have had no incentive to increase output, to keep down expenditure, or to develop the industry Output has been lost because a coal mine is a wasting property, and a coalowner who has only a few million tons left is not in any way desirous that those should be quickly brought to the surface if he is going to gain nothing thereby. There has been no inducement to keep down costs, and therefore money has been spent by colliery companies with a lavish hand and in all sorts of unnecessary ways. There has been no inducement to develop new districts and to sink new shafts, and the absence of this during the past year will be felt by the country at a later period.
But that is not all. Colliery owners who Were doing an export trade, believing that their profits were definitely limited and desiring to secure for themselves a portion of the exceptional profits which were being obtained from exported coal, have formed subsidiary companies, or coal exporting firms, to which the collieries
have sold their coal at a less price than they could obtain abroad, and in that way the subsidiary companies and firms have intercepted profits which should have formed part of the aggregate profits of the industry. Proceedings of this kind, having regard to the provisions of this Bill, are unfair both to the other coalowners and to the consumers. If the President of the Board of Trade could secure the profits which are being intercepted in this way he could at once reduce domestic coal by another 5s. a ton. All these things—the loss of output, the wasteful expenditure, the lack of development, and the interception of profits—have resulted from the delay of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill.
But that is not the only black spot in the record of the Board of Trade. In July last we had the Yorkshire coal strike, when the Board issued, in a panic, orders that export must cease and no one in the Metropolitan area must buy more than 3 cwts. of coal a week, orders which were withdrawn almost as quickly as they were issued. That strike was due to the fact that when the hours were reduced on 16th July the wages of certain workers had to be altered. The Board of Trade had four months to deal with that matter. They failed to deal with it in the time and the strike arose. Then we had the 6s. a ton rise in July, coupled with the promise that the price should be reduced by sixpences as and when possible. According to the independent accountants the Board of Trade was wrong by half-a-crown per ton, and yet this had not been discovered on 27th October, for on that date the President told the House that he could not even then reduce the price by the first sixpence. Then came the dramatic reduction of 10s. per ton on domestic coal, to the confusion of coalowners and consumers alike. It is a sorry history.
Perhaps the President will say, "It is all very well to criticise my Bill and my administration, but what do you suggest?" Perhaps some hon. Members will ask, "If you are so severe on, the actions of this State department, how do you reconcile the vote of yourself and your friends in favour of the nationalisation Motion introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) on Wednesday last?" I will try to answer both questions. I am in complete agreement with the Prime Minister when he said in effect that our industrial prosperity has resulted
from the efforts of individuals who were stimulated by the incentive of private gain. This basic fact will be equally true in the post-war future as in the pre-war past. The idea that a man will work better for humanity, or out of patriotic zeal, than he will for himself, his wife and his children is a mistaken one. We should, however, bear in mind that it is equally necessary in these days, when production is so important, that employés shall have an incentive as well as the employer and that what acts as an incentive to the employer must not act as a deterrent to the employé. My views are not those of the hon. Member for Rothwell. I have no desire; to see every industry owned and worked by the nation. Only very exceptional facts would convince me that nationalisation was in the interests of the general community, and even then the sort of nationalisation which I should advocate would possibly not be that which others would support.
Let me show how this applies to the coal industry. Coal is the life-blood of all our industries. It enables us to manufacture millions of pounds worth of goods for foreign countries. It supplies our homes with warmth, and that at a cost which, in comparison with other countries, is reasonable, and it is an export which pays for goods which we must obtain from abroad. At present our exports of coal are of vital importance to the economic recovery of Europe. The world's coal production has fallen from 650,000,000 tons before the war to about 450,000,000 tons to-day. It behoves us, therefore, to see that both for ourselves and for the sake of the other countries in whose fortunes we are interested our output is continually increasing. It is our duty, therefore, to examine the general position of the coal industry, to ascertain the amount of coal which is in process of being won, to obtain expert estimates as to the potential resources of the country and to provide means by which an increased output will accrue year by year by means and methods of. working which will yield coal at the lowest possible cost per ton This will never be done if we proceed in the haphazard manner in which we have done in the past, namely, if we leave it to individuals to sink shafts and win coal in any way they think fit according to the capital they possess and the knowledge
and experience they acquire. At present there are collieries with adequate capital and expert managers whose work cannot be excelled, but, on the other hand, there are hundreds of collieries, crippled by inadequate capital and hampered by inferior management, where the output is far below that which is possible, and where the cost of production is far more than is necessary. In view of the importance of coal to ourselves in particular and to the world in general, we cannot afford this state of things to continue. In the national interest we must see that a progressive coal policy is in force by which the utmost production by the most up-to-date and ever-improving methods, at the lowest and ever-reducing cost is available.
In pre-war days the coal industry was in private hands. We talk about the coal-owners. Who are they? In a few cases individuals are operating coal mines as a personal business, but in the great majority of cases coal is owned by joint stock companies whose shareholders are spread over the length and breadth of the country. In a certain sense the industry is already nationalised. It is well that we should realise who are responsible for conducting the industry and providing for its future development. We can eliminate the shareholders, for beyond being available to provide fresh capital if it is required, they take no part in the management. The persons who are responsible may be divided into three classes. First, there are those who personally own and work the coal mines. They are few in number. Secondly, there are the directors of the joint stock companies. How many of those have any real knowledge of underground working? Possibly the managing director. We should find on inquiry that the colliery directors, as a rule, depend upon the colliery manager's monthly report for suggestions in regard to the underground working, and that they themselves deal with financial and other matters. Thirdly, you have the colliery managers. Those are the men, experienced probably since boyhood in the industry, upon whom the country really depends for its output of coal. Those are the men who suggest the opening of new districts, the adoption of new methods, and the sinking of new shafts. The position, therefore, of the coal industry is
that a limited number of directors with practical knowledge and experience, and a large body of colliery managers, together with the miners and other workers, above and underground, are carrying on the industry for the benefit of the army of shareholders.
Keeping in mind the fact that it is a national necessity to obtain the greatest output at the least possible cost, let us examine whether under the past system of working there have been any other matters that militate against such an achievement. In the first place there are millions of tons of barrier coal—that is, coal which acts as a wall between the properties of two different owners—which are lost to the nation. The roads to it underground are made, the underground rails are laid, and that coal could easily be won at a low cost, but it must not be touched. In the second place, many seams of coal could much more easily be won from a neighbouring colliery than from the colliery to whom the seam belongs. The latter might have to drive through a hard heading at a great waste of time and cost, whereas the neighbouring colliery could go straight through the barrier coal to the seam. In the third place, many a colliery through lack of capital in its initial stages has failed to make adequate plans for winning the coal within its reach, and the result is that that colliery has to spend a great deal of unnecessary capital subsequently in order to get its coal. This means that the cost of production is heavier than it need be. Fourthly, there has been in the coal industry no standardisation of materials and appliances which, if produced by mass production, would be obtained at far less expense, and would reduce the cost of coal production. Fifthly, there is no combined system of drainage. A whole district of coal mines may be hampered in their working by water; yet each colliery has to make its own plans for meeting this difficulty. Cases are known in which water pumped out of one colliery flows into the working of another, and has to be pumped out again. Sixthly, there are all sorts of commissions paid to various persons in various capacities between the hewing of the coal and its delivery to the consumers, which are unnecessary and add to its cost.
I can imagine that hon. Members will say: "We are all in favour of the barrier
coal being used, of appliances and materials being standardised, of collieries not being hampered by lack of capital, of expense being saved by a system of combined drainage, of the unnecessary middleman being eliminated, and everything possible being done to reduce the cost of coal and to increase output." Our objection to nationalisation is not that it would open the door to these improvements, but that, if I may quote Mr. Asquith's phrases in his election address, "This policy would enthrone the rule of bureaucracy, tend to stereotype processes, paralyse individual initiative and enterprise, reduce output, and sooner or later impoverish the community." I am equally opposed to these dangers as any hon. Member. I have already said that I realise that the prosperity of the country has resulted from the efforts of individuals, stimulated by the incentive of personal gain, and I should have no hope for the future of the coal industry if that principle was departed from. But I want to make a suggestion which will perhaps help to solve the problem, that we all want to solve, namely, how to obtain peace and smooth working in the coal industry and how to use this national asset to the greatest advantage. I have pointed out that the men who are really responsible for the management of the industry are a very few private owners, a limited number of directors and the colliery managers. These men could not be spared and must be retained in any future scheme. The suggestion made in the Sankey Report is that each colliery should be run by a manager and a local mining council, that each district, say, Northumberland, should be run by a district manager and a district mining council, and that the whole industry should be run by a general manager and a national mining council. Bearing in mind the necessity of providing a personal incentive, a possible solution of the problem might appear to be that each colliery manager and the members of the local mining councils should be remunerated partly by fixed salary and partly by commission, according to the increased output and the decreased cost of production in their respective collieries; that the district managers should be remunerated.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has evidently been listened to with great
attention, but I fail to see the relevance of his speech to the object of the Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: The Bill is to continue a certain form of coal control, which I have endeavoured to point out is a mixture of private ownership and nationalisation. That form of control is to be continued until the 31st August, 1920. I am suggesting that for that form of control there should be substituted the form I am now proposing. I hope I am in order in doing so.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill, as I understand it, is for the purpose of dividing profits which have arisen in the past and which may arise up to the 31st August. The hon. Member has not dealt with that matter at all. He is dealing with an entirely different scheme.

Mr. HOLMES: With all respect, the Bill is for the purpose of dividing profits in a certain way, to repeal the old Coal Agreement, and to re-enact certain portions of it which deal with the whole control of the coal industry. There are two separate parts of the Bill. One refers to profits and the other to control. Section 9 repeals the old Act, but seven or eight clauses re-enact the manner in which the industry is to be regulated for the next six months. I hope I am in order in discussing that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows more about the coal industry than I can profess to do, but, so far as I can gather, the whole of his proposal is a general proposal dealing with the coal industry for the future. What we have to do is to finish up the old state of affairs before we can begin to deal with the new. We have to finish up the state of affairs which the War has brought about, and the Bill, as I understand it, is for that purpose. When that has been accomplished the field will still be open.

Mr. HOLMES: I do not want to waste the time of the House or to oppose your ruling, but I do respectfully suggest that as this Bill carries the coal control up to the 31st August, 1920, and it is possible for this House to alter the Bill in the form I suggest as from 1st April next to the 31st August, that I am in order in putting these suggestions forward.

HON. MEMBERS: New Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: There is no guarantee when the next Bill will be brought in. We are told that we are to have a Bill in the House of Lords, but we may not see it this year. If that Bill is not introduced this Bill goes on and can be continued. I will not detain the House more than a few minutes longer. I suggest that each colliery manager and the members of the local mining council should be remunerated partly by salary and partly by a commission based on the reduction in the cost of production and on the increase in output, that similarly the district managers and the district council should be remunerated, and that the general manager for the whole industry and the National Mining Council should be remunerated likewise, and depend for part of their remuneration upon increased output and reduced cost of production throughout the whole country. Such an arrangement would stimulate the local managers and the members of the local mining councils to do their utmost in their own particular sphere. It would stimulate the district manager and the district councils to bring the standard of the worst colliery in the district up to the standard of the best. It would also stimulate the general manager and the National Mining Council to devise new methods which research and science could work out by which costs could be reduced and new coal could be won. The position of the miners would remain unchanged in so far as wages are concerned. They would receive a minimum wage, but might earn more according to output. An additional incentive, therefore, would be given to them if a sliding scale was agreed upon by which the rate of wages was increased as their individual weekly output increased. They would at the same time be able to feel that they were working for the benefit of the community and that no one was obtaining an undue proportion of the fruits of the industry. Such a scheme, call it nationalisation or any other name you like, is not bureaucracy, but business. It would not tend to stereotype processes,ģ but would cause the brains of hundreds of men to endeavour to improve them. It would not paralyse individual initiative, but, on the contrary, would stimulate it It would not reduce output, but would increase it, and would not, either sooner or later, impoverish the community, but would quickly enrich it.

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
7.0 P.M.
We have had medicine prescribed in the past to deal with this matter which was rejected as distasteful. We have new medicine to-day in a new bottle, and we have a new physician. In regard to the latter fact I think the Government may very well be congratulated. The new physician certainly had an excellent bedside manner, and not a word that he said was calculated to flutter in the least degree the patient under his treatment. I should be doing an injustice to the President of the Board of Trade if I suggested that the difference in the manner in which the House is to-day receiving his proposals is due to the way in which they were brought forward. Hon. Members must have been struck by the great change, in the atmosphere and temper of the House to-day compared with what it was when the measure was last brought before us. It was Disraeli, I think, who once referred to the Front Bench as a row of extinct volcanoes. We might very well apply that description to the whole House now, because the fire has gone out of it. That tense and extraordinary earnestness with which we were imbued on the last occasion when this Bill was introduced is not here to-day. I have been wondering why that is so. My hon. Friend who has just spoken gave us a very interesting history of the proceedings in connection with this coal problem since Parliament rose. It would be interesting if the President of the Board of Trade would tell us something of the history of the proceedings during the recess. I have only been a short time a Member of this House, but so far as I can see, there have been great crises in the history of this Parliament. There was a great commotion on the Transport Bill. There was an actual revolt on the Aliens Bill. Everybody who was present when the Coal Emergency Bill was brought forward last Session will admit that a very critical stage arose for the Government. After each of these great storms there has been a great calm, and things have gone forward without apparently any friction being likely to arise. On the first two occasions something did happen. We heard of visits to Downing Street, and we were given to understand that negotiations had taken place which had brought about a settlement. I do not
know whether there have been any such negotiations in the present crisis. If there have been, they have been managed with a great deal more discretion.
I do not suppose that we are likely to hear anything about them to-night, but certainly a great change has been made in the two measures and if there have been no conferences and no negotiations between the Government and the mine-owners, the Government have evidently come to a solution which is extremely acceptable to the mineowners of this country. I think it must be because those terms are so acceptable that our proceedings to-day are so amicable, and after the speech which we were fortunate in having from the late Coal Controller, we can understand a little the sort of affection with which the mineowners must regard this Bill. He told us in a very illuminating speech, which cast a great deal of light on the dark problems of the figures of the coal business, that under this Kill the mineowners of this country are getting a guarantee which puts them in a 10 per cent. better position than under their pre-war standard. That must-be a matter of satisfaction to them. They are not only 10 per cent. above their prewar standard but they are 46 per cent. above the best two years before the War, and 120 per cent. above the average of the five years preceding the War. It is to facts of that kind we must look for the peaceful atmosphere in which we are fortunate enough to be discussing this Bill this afternoon, because though the hon. Member who introduced the Bill attempted to show that there was very little difference between the terms of this Bill and those of the last Bill, I think he said that this Bill gives the mine owners £22,000,000 a year, and under the last Bill it was possible for them to get £21,400,000. That was not the impression of the House when the Bill was last before it, and it was not the impression of those who were interested as owners of collieries.
I, like many other Members, received a great deal of correspondence at that time, and I would like briefly to bring before the House what was the opinion of those who had vested interests in the colliery industry of the Bill which was then brought forward. Here is a letter nom a colliery office, in which the writer says: "there is absolutely no justice in the Government proposal." That is quite
calm and cool criticism. In another letter the writer referring to these proposals says: "the absolute dishonesty and injustice to the coalowners of this proposal is an overwhelming blow at our industrial supremacy." Another letter describes the proposal as "unjust and spoliative." Another says: "the proposal of the Government is sheer spoliation," and there is another letter from someone who spoke of "the disgraceful Bolshevik Coal Bill that should not be allowed a Second Beading." It was not allowed a Second Beading. But if the proposals of the last Bill were fair, why have they not been adhered to, and if they were not fair, why-were they introduced? The present Bill has no memorandum. This is rather unfortunate. These Bills that have memoranda are helpful. In the memorandum the Government sot out the object for which the Bill is introduced. That helps you to this extent, that at least you know that the reason given is not the real reason which the Government had in mind.
We learned when the last Bill reached its critical stage in the last Session the real reason why it was introduced. It will be remembered by everybody who was present that when the representatives of the miners on this side said that the Bill was not what they wanted a rather serious situation arose. The Leader of the House was brought in. He told us what we had not known up to that time, that the Bill was not to carry out any recommendation, but that the Government had spent money and if they did not get it out of the Bill they would be placed in a difficulty, and for that reason they would have to introduce the Bill again and get the money which they had expected to get. I object to this Bill oh various grounds, but very largely because it is not going to serve the purpose which the Government expect it to serve. I cannot see how any Member of this House or of the Government can expect, after the speech of the late Coal Controller, that there is any money in this Bill for that. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, said when speaking on the question that all the money which was expected to be got under this Bill had already been spent. We were certainly given to understand by the Leader of the House during last Session that the money had already been appropriated and would have to be found
Yet we are told by the Prime Minister that the money is free to purchase the royalties if we desire to do it.
The Chancellor only this very afternoon, when he put before us the figures of the coal deficiency, suggested that that deficiency, £22,000,000, might be met as far as £20,000,000 is concerned from the proceeds of this Bill. How can an expectation of that kind arise? It has been pointed out by the late Coal Controller that under this Bill, according to the estimate of an independent accountant, not more than £19,084,000 is available and the guarantee of the Government is £20,000,000, so that this Bill cannot produce any money. It can only produce a deficiency. That is anticipated because provision is made in the Bill by which the Treasury shall find money. If that is so an extraordinary state of things arises. Here is the Chancellor expecting to get £20,000,000 under this Bill, yet it has been pointed out by experts in this House that instead of getting £20,000,000 he will have to find at least £1,000,000 to meet the deficiency that will arise. On that ground alone I think the House should reject the Bill. We have already found £1,000,000 to make up the deficiency under the Welsh Church Bill and I see no reason why we should now find another £1,000,000 to make up the deficiency under the Coal Bill.
The Government have shown great judgment in changing the name of the Bill. The Bill is no longer, a Bill for the limitation of profits. The last Bill was so described and naturally aroused a great deal of opposition among the supporters of the Government, because they are very sensitive on the point of limitation of profits. I do not suggest for a moment that they are opposed to it; they joined with other Members of the House in passing the Profiteering Bill, and it would be unfair to suggest they are opposed to the limitation of excessive profits. But they were sensitive on the question of the limitation of profits just as they were sensitive on the question of the limitation of hours. I do not suggest that they are opposed to the limitation of hours but they are sensitive on the point. The Government did wisely in changing the name. It is no longer a Bill for the limitation of profits; it is now a Bill for the distribution of profits, a very much
pleasanter thing. The Government have learned from the supporters that they object a great deal more to names than to things, and if you can find another name they will very often accept the thing they rejected in the past, for while they do not object to nationalisation what they object to is the name of it. They have nationalised the coal mines in the Saar Valley. They call it reparation. They do not object to a capital levy: they agree that it is feasible to impose a capital levy on the Germans, not only one capital levy but a capital levy from time to time. But they do not call it a capital levy; they call it indemnity. Under that name they are quite willing to accept it, and the House might be well advised to remember that.
The great charge against this Bill is that not only that it is not going to bring the Government any financial help, but is going further to embarrass them, and that it is putting an end to a system under which the coal mines are being carried on at the present time fairly satisfactorily, and is setting up nothing in its place. It is suggested that something is going to come at once which may or may not be acceptable. The position is, after this Bill is passed, after under this Bill the Coal Control Agreement is repealed, every worker in the mines at the present time will be placed in a position of insecurity in the future. During the period of the war, owing to one cause or another the conditions have been improved in a way which never would have been achieved except under a national system. If this pooling system goes, then there is going to be chaos in the whole of the minefields. This has been pointed out to this House by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn). No one has suggested anything to the contrary. Only yesterday the Chancellor resisted an appeal for inquiry into a capital levy because he said the effect of it would be to arouse a sense of insecurity in investors. But the passage of this Bill is going to arouse an even greater sense of insecurity among nearly 1,000,000 workers in one of the greatest industries of this country. It may be that that is a matter of comparative indifference to the Government. We heard from the Leader of the House yesterday the doctrine—I do not know whether it is the accepted doctrine of the Government—that the future may take care of itself, but I prediet
that if this Bill is passed, and if the Coal Control Agreement is brought to an end, the results foretold by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division will be fully realised, and we shall live to regret it.

Mr. BRACE: In rising to support the rejection of this Bill, I confess at once that what has amazed me most is the kind of cavalier fashion which the Government adopt in dealing with this very great foundation industry. If one desires to be flippant, I think I should call this Government a hand-to-mouth Government. They seem to be content to deal with great root economic problems from day to day, whereas if we are to do what we ought to do for the nation's trade and commerce, we ought to be entering upon a carefully devised scheme which would—I was going to say budget, not for months, but for years to come. There is a very serious issue involved here. The issue is what may happen to the industry this year. Why the Government should come down and ask us to give them a Second Reading to a Bill of this character when they know they ought to come down with a measure which would stabilise the industry, create a feeling of security, encourage both employers and workmen to give to the nation and to the world that output which is so greatly needed, I cannot understand. What is the position of the industry? Arising out of a series of commitments during the years of the War, the industry, speaking from the standpoint of economics, has reached a stage when it must have a "pool." Every colliery, whether in Scotland, in England or in Wales, must be part and parcel of a common pool. This Bill will not interfere with that principle, but it does this—it automatically destroys that system without having another system ready to put in its place, and it seems to me that what the Government ought to have done was to establish a permanent system before they attempted to take away this system, which carries us up to next autumn.
Let us forecast what is well within the range of probability. My right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister may come down to this House with a Bill, let me say for nationalisation. I do not think the most sanguine of us would readily conclude that a proposal to nationalise the mines, such as we have been upholding all along, would meet with unanimous
assent in this House, and I think I may say that if the Prime Minister came with such a measure that measure would be rejected. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman came down with a measure such as the Prime Minister talked of in the closing days of last Session, a measure based upon the creation of a series of great trusts, which we would be bound to oppose. It might be found that the majority in this House would oppose the proposal, and that Bill might have to be withdrawn. Do the Government realise that there are only a few months between now and August, and it is quite conceivable that that time would not be sufficient to set up the necessary machinery under any system which is to take the place of the system which this Bill automatically abolishes? This Bill abolishes the present system on 31st August, 1920. It repeals the whole system so far as legislative sanction is concerned. I take a very grave view of it. I am founding myself upon the language of the Bill, which says that the Bill, if it becomes law, will automatically terminate the present system, which is founded upon an Act of Parliament—the Coal Control Agreement. Clause 9 does that. My interpretation of that clause is that the old order changes and that the Bill arranges that the old order shall continue only to August 31st, 1920.
If that be so, you may well have this situation. In South Wales, where we have 80 per cent. of exports, we would, at the large majority of the collieries, be entitled to an advance in wages of many shillings a day, but if we attempted to arrange that under a collective agreement through the Joint Board, we should by that agreement, which would do justice to the workmen on the basis of the prices received, shut down every colliery which would be supplying coal for the home market. It would shut down whole coalfields such as the Forest of Dean and Somerset and Bristol, if anything interfered with the making of this pool. It is because my colleagues and myself are afraid of the future, without an assurance to which sanction is given by Act of Parliament as to what is to be the system under which the industry is to be conducted, that we say to the Government: "You ought not to go on with this Bill at all," and say to the House that they ought not to sanction this Bill without first bringing in a
measure whereby the whole mining industry is to be conducted.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) has. I think, fairly riddled the figures of the Government again, not only the figures as prepared through the Department, but even the figures given by the chartered accountants. We shall have an opportunity of arguing that much more clearly when we come to meet the Prime Minister later this week on questions of wages. This policy of secrecy in the industry is bound to cease if we are to have peace. I have had in the course of my years' leadership many briefs. The one thing I have been authorised to demand is that the coalowners should disclose to us what the industry can afford to pay. They never tell us. In fact, judged by the declarations of the majority of the colliery owners, they have invariably been living on losses. That kind of policy creates such a suspicion that it is very difficult to keep peace. Among my letters yesterday I had a most threatening anonymous letter from a demobilised soldier, disgruntled because of the wages he received and because of the lethargy on the part of our organisation in general and myself in particular in not making demands for proper wage rates. I have no doubt that the gentleman who wrote to me has suffered privations during the war, and consequently one must not feel too unkindly about it. There is the broad fact that that feeling exists. It is that kind of spirit which is spreading among our people, and unless we can go to these men and show them without any shadow of doubt that the wage rate they are receiving is just and the full rate which the industry can carry, there is no hope of keeping peace in the industry. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he must abolish this system of secrecy, and we must know if capital will be content with a fair return upon its investment.
I am certain that the large mass of the people will offer no objection to a fair return upon capital, but we do not know what is a fair return. We have a right to know, because while a man or woman may invest capital, as was said in a very picturesque phrase this afternoon, "Labour's capital is its flesh and blood," and labour has as much right to know
the whole secrets of the industry as have the people who invest their money. I ask that the two clauses of the Bill which deal with this question of secrecy shall, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, be drastically amended. We must know in the future what the industry can do, and when we go into conferences either with the employers or with the Government, we, speaking on behalf of Labour, must be as well equipped with facts and figures as anybody there negotiating for any other interest. I am compelled to say that without that we cannot do justice either to the people we represent or to the nation, and we are offering our opposition to this Bill, not because we are against fair profits to capital, but because we feel that this is not the way to proceed. Unless my right hon. Friend can give to the House an assurance that within days the Government will come down with a new scheme which is to be the scheme upon which the industry is to be conducted in future, I will ask the House to pause before giving the Bill a Second Reading.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Brigadier-General Hickman) spoke eloquently about the future and about giving an opportunity for capital and labour to have some form of close co-operation upon the respective authorities for managing collieries. My hon. and gallant Friend, large coalowner as he is, must either have a very short memory or he must never have read what the coalowners in the mass through the Mining Association declared upon this point. Lord Gainford was put up officially to declare in the name and on behalf of the Mining Association as follows:—
I am authorised to say on behalf of the Mining Association that if the owners are not to be left complete executive control they will decline to accept the responsibility of carrying on the industry, and though they regard nationalisation as disastrous to the country they feel they would in such an event be driven to the only alternative—nationalisation upon fair terms.
That is the official declaration of the combined coalowners of Great Britain. That is what the authoritative spokesman was authorised to tell the whole industry—that he would not have it at any price. Whether that was done to stampede the Coal Commission I do not know. At any rate, it did not come off, and I am bound to say that before we would be in a position to accept any programme of joint
co-operation we should want to examine it much more carefully than I propose to examine it to-night.
Lastly, let me say that we are opposing this Bill not upon the figures, but upon the main principle that this industry cannot afford to live from hand to mouth, and that you will not have improved output until you give security to the industry. Coalowners and workmen do not know where they are, and in this great key industry one would have thought that the Government would ex haust itself in finding ways and means for bringing peace and confidence to the people employed in producing coal. Speaking on behalf of the Miners' Federation and the Labour party, I say we cannot be parties to the passing of this Bill until we know exactly what the Government are prepared to do upon nationalisation, because, whether you like it or not, you will be driven to it, and we do not want to be placed in the position on the 31st August of being faced with a threat that unless we accept the scheme of the Government we shall be faced with industrial chaos. Those are the grounds on which we oppose this Bill, and unless we can have some more satisfactory explanation of the position on the 31st August, we must go into the Lobby against this Bill.

Sir A. GEDDES: E am sure every hon. Member has been struck by the excellent temper and the desire of all sides to come to a reasonable understanding as to the difficulties of the position. I will refer first to the speech of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Brace). I think he misunderstands the speech which has been made to-day in introducing it, as to the effect of this Bill in regard to control over the coal industry. The right hon. Gentleman believes that the control over the coal industry is exercised by the Government under a special statute, and especially under the Control Agreement Act of 1918. May I point out that control over the whole industry is still exercised under D.O.H.A., and that control would lapse altogether if it were not continued under the Bill which was before the House on the last occasion when this question was dealt with, and it will lapse when the end of the War comes unless it is continued under that Bill when it becomes an Act. What we are doing here is
simply bringing these new financial arrangements into force, and giving them a life for just so long as the coal control will exist in its present form. We have to face the fact that between now and August there has to be a complete arrangement made for the immediate future at all events of the coal industry, because I do not think that anyone who knows the facts with regard to that industry will imagine that coal could now be entirely removed from control because there would be utter chaos in the country; This Bill does not terminate control. It is quite clear that this measure brings in certain financial arrangements which will end when the powers of control end. It is intended to clear the ground for the more lasting structure which we hope to introduce within the next few weeks.
There has been a good deal of discussion among ourselves as to whether it was advisable to bring in this Bill before we had the other measure in all its parts. That measure has been before the Cabinet to-day for approval, and under all its heads, and it is now in the hands of the draughtsman. We decided that it, would be better, and our judgment maybe wrong, to bring in this Bill as quickly as possible in order that we might get the Coal Control Department, which, like any other Department, has had a great deal of work thrown upon it, free of part of the burden of parliamentary work which it has to bear, in order that it might get on with its job and its own reorganisation. We also believe that by bringing this Bill before the other we should be able to deal with the issues more clearly both now and afterwards. Had we brought in the two Bills together the whole thing would have got muddled up, and we could not have had the discussions on the two subjects apart. We may have been wrong, but I believe that it will be better to have this Bill got out of the way before we bring in the other Bill, so that we may have a clear field. That is the sole explanation of why this Bill was introduced before the other measure has been laid before the House, and I think there is a good deal to be said for the course which the Government have adopted.
We are told that in this Bill we are re-establishing secrecy. I am altogether against secrecy in these matters because I do not think anything is gained by it, but we must keep guarantees which have been given in good faith. We have to
remember that Schedule No. 2 deals with information given to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, amongst other things. I do not think that this House could possibly suggest that information given in the past to the Inland Revenue should be made public. Let us recognise that that is a very big section of the secret information which is dealt with in these clauses. There was a certain relaxation made with regard to the secrecy which attaches to the information in possession of the Treasury and Treasury officials in connection with the Coal Industry Commission. If this information in the possession of the Inland Revenue authorities was secret in the past, you cannot expect to cut off that secrecy on the 31st August, and say that you should now have that information made public to the world. That would not be acting in good faith, and, therefore, we cannot repeal the secrecy clauses under which action has been taken.

Mr. BRACE: We quite understand that it would not only be a breach of confidence, but a very serious matter to disclose information as to a man's individual position, but that is not what we are asking for, and will my right hon. Friend make no mistake about that?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am glad my right hon. Friend has made that point clear, because I thought he was asking for this information as well as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn).

Mr. HARTSHORN: That is not the information that I have been contending for When this Bill terminates arrangements will still exist by which information will be supplied by the owners to the Board of Trade, and that is to be continued as secret information and we shall not have access to it under this Bill.

Sir A. GEDDES: Let us take this question point by point. I understand now that in regard to the information given to the Inland Revenue in confidence, it has to remain secret, and that we have no difference of opinion on that point. Now what is the other information that has been brought from the collieries which the hon. Member for Ogmore suggests should be treated differently? Is it not information of exactly the same kind? Does it not consist of individual returns from individual collieries showing the output, the
whole of their financial position, the amount of the advances made and paid back, and information of that kind? That is the kind of information that is contained in those returns, and I do not think that by going back upon the past, and saying that we are going to make all that public, that you are going to do anything but create chaos and add to the difficulties of getting a permanent settlement.
You must build up a new system with recognised machinery for consultation which I have no doubt whatever the colliery owners are fully prepared to agree to. You must have recognised machinery for consultation between the workmen on the one hand and the managerial and technical staffs on the other hand, as well as the owners. Under some definite procedure I have no doubt that such consultation can be arranged, but I do not think it would be anything but disastrous for us to tear up the whole arrangements for secrecy which have been made in the past, and we should not go back on that. Let us go forward and get the new machinery for consultation, and I can assure hon. Members that in the Government Bill which we shall introduce very shortly, they will find such an arrangement sketched out. My right hon. Friend opposite said that in his opinion the hon. Member for Ogmore had riddled the Accountant's figures. I have always admired my hon. Friend's power of dealing with figures and the vigour with which he, I will not say lays down the law about them, but impresses them upon us, but I was disappointed with him this evening, when I found that he was describing figures as having been prepared at the same time, which on the face of the documents are shown as having been prepared at different times and as dealing with perfectly different estimates. I really began to doubt whether he had read the Accountant's report, and finally I came to the conclusion that he could only have read it very hurriedly and that he had not quite understood all that was in it. He took Appendix No. 3, which was prepared by the Accountant in response to the Prime Minister's request for information as to what, in the Accountant's opinion, was the position of the industry on the 31st March, 1920, and he contrasted that with a perfectly different thing, namely, an estimate prepared in October and November by the Board of
Trade. He described them both as the Accountant's figures.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I think I ought to say that I did not describe them both as the Accountant's figures. I said one was an estimate prepared by the Department and submitted to the Accountant, and that he said that estimate was fair and reasonable, notwithstanding the fact that he had put in one of his own.

Sir A. GEDDES: But there was a difference of months in the time of preparation, and he had not the slightest idea, because he had not read the report properly, of what he was dealing with, or else he was making a point which was hardly fair. I do not think it is quite fair for the hon. Member to come down here and say this report is no good, that it is nothing but guesses, that here we have a guess by the Accountant and here a guess by the Department, and so on. What we want, he says, is not figures up to the 31st March but up to the 31st August, and when anybody gives some figures, unless they happen to agree with what he thinks they ought to be, he calls them a guess and says they are all wrong. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, at each of these coal debates we have had from him a speech of the same type: "Here are certain Government figures; here are mine; the others are all wrong." In sober fact, have the others always been all wrong? Go back to the Debate of last July, when one of the figures which my hon. Friend had no use for was the estimate that the output for the year 1919 would be 230,000,000 tons. He said the whole basis of that estimated output was utterly wrong, and it was a most impressive speech that he made. He actually said, I think, in so many words, that no one who knew anything about the industry at all would have made such an estimate. Yet I think the actual output of 229.6 million tons shows that the estimate was not so bad.

Mr. HARTSHORN: No, it is not so bad because you had 8,000,000 tons less through strikes that you did not provide for.

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, we were allowing for the average sort of working year. Nobody expected that the mining industry would suddenly cease to have occasional sporadic strikes, and allowance was made accordingly.

Sir E. JONES: There was 5 per cent. allowed for strikes.

Sir A. GEDDES: In the next Debate we had the same sort of thing. Our figures were all wrong, according to the hon. Member, but were his figures any better than anybody else's? Not a bit. I do not see that these figures in advance are very much use except to give you a guide for a time, and if the hon. Member will go back to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate in last July he will see quite clearly stated by the spokesman for the Government that the 217,000,000 tons estimate was only regarded as a guide for the time. I do not think it is going to help us very much to go back on these controversies. The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes), speaking this afternoon, said the fires were getting burnt out, and I hope they are getting burnt out over some of the controversies we have had in this House in the last year on the subject of coal. If we do not go forward to the consideration of the new proposals trying to find a solution, if we do go forward trying to pick up old scores one way or another, then I do not think we shall find a workable solution very easy to achieve, and I would appeal that the spirit which has characterised the Debate this afternoon in the main should be continued into our future Debates on the general subject of the coal industry, and that the House would allow this Bill now to receive its Second Reading.
There are, however, a few points which were raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for the Pembroke Division (Sir E. Jones), which I think I might without boring the House just refer to. The first point he made was that if one colliery has lost in output and another colliery has gained greatly, there would be no benefit to the colliery which had gained in output. As a matter of fact, the hypothetical case which he put was a very extreme one, and it might have terrified us if we had been looking forward to a future, but we are not looking very much forward in connection with this Bill. We are looking back to a past where the results are already broadly known and where, looking over the whole field, we find that, although theoretically this is not a very desirable way of doing things and would not do for future application,
as a matter of fact for the past it works out, we think, pretty well. That is really the answer, that it is because we know fairly well what the problems are that we believe that this method of dividing the profits is going to be fair. On the details, of course, of the division of profits there would be no desire on the part of the Government to resist any clearly expressed wish of the colliery owners, because when it comes to a matter like that of the division of profits, whatever is desired by them is clearly a matter over which the Government ought so far as possible to try and agree.
Another point raised by my hon. Friend was why we have, had in Clause 1 in connection with the guarantee the date of the 1st January, 1920. In that case, again, the reason is very much the same as the last one, only it is rather the reverse. We know what the position is up to the end of 1019, but we feel that it would be very unfair if we were to say to the owners, "That is the arrangement we are going to make, and now we will do anything we like." We could not say to the owners, "We will not move the price of coal." We could not say to them, "We are going to have our hands tied with regard to any financial adjustments which it is necessary to make," and therefore it seems to me, and I venture to think it will also appeal to the House as wise, that we should say to them, "You know what we have done up to the end of the year. From now on you do not know what we are going to do, and therefore we say to you that if you are anxious lest we should bring you below the guarantee level, we will make the amount up to that level."

Sir E. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, somewhat mistaken my point. I drew attention to the fact that the Board of Trade would under this clause be able to make up the deficiency on account of any deficiency arising out of orders given by the Board between the 1st April, 1919, and the 1st January, 1920.

Sir A. GEDDES: But I do not want to. I think there is probably some slight misunderstanding here, and it may be that the drafting is not quite clear, but if in Committee it is not quite clear I am sure the point can be met.

Mr. SPENCER: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Jones), will he say whether the statement that he has made that the profits under this Bill will reach 1s. 9d. per ton instead of 1s. 2d. is true or not? I would like him to realise the gravity of a statement of that character if it is true.

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. GEDDES: I think it is about 1s. 9d. It depends upon the tonnage, of course, but it is about 1s. 9d., but, as I said before the House rose for the Christmas Vacation, the total amount given under this Bill is very much the same as would have been given under the so-called 1s. 2d. Bill. There is a difference of about £700,000 depending upon adjustments which cannot be exactly foreseen. The point that was made just now is, I think, a point that can only be made if one does not fully understand the facts. Certainly, when the hon. Baronet, the Member for East Newcastle, spoke of the deficit which would result from this Bill, he had not got the facts fully before him. We have got in the 1s. 2d. arrangement profit merely on coal raised and nothing else. We had got in the Accountant's figures in this Paper profits on coal raised with certain small additions. There you have got coming in amortisation allowance which amounts to £1,000,000 for the whole industry. Then we have got capital adjustment under the Finance Acts which amount to somewhere about £4,000,000 in the opinion of the Accountant, but when we pass to the standard profit we pass from pure coal profits altogether, and then we begin to add profits upon other activities of the coal mining undertakings. This is where the catch comes in every time. Where we have got a coal undertaking which has, in addition, some profit coming in, it may be from land, farms, house property, brick works, or running a subsidiary wagon company, which, at the present moment, is paying pretty well—all that is lumped in, and when you have all those miscellaneous receipts to which I have just referred, capital adjustment under the Finance Acts, and amortisation, you get the rise in the nominal return per ton.

Mr. HOLMES: Surely it is going to be the pre-war standard, plus £4,000,000
allowance for increased capital, making £26,000,000 altogether.

Sir A. GEDDES: That is all right taking it that way, but I was also right taking it the other way.

Mr. HOLMES: I do not think so.

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, taking the total amount which would go to the owners on the tonnage basis. We have jumped from the tonnage basis to the standard basis. There is something less than three-quarters of a million, and more than half a, million difference between the return to the coalowners under this Bill and the return they would have got under the 1s. 2d. Bill, if that had become law.

Mr. HARTSHORN: On what?

Sir A. GEDDES: On the estimated output in the year 1919–20. So that from that point of view there is little difference between the Bills. When I introduced the 1s. 2d. Bill I felt all along that the principle of that Bill was not good, and I said so at the time I was introducing the Bill. It was a Bill introduced as a measure to fulfil a pledge from which,

very fortunately, we were released by the members of the Miners' Federation who were present. I would like to say that I think the relaxation which they gave to the Government was very beneficial, because I think under this Bill we have got proposals which, if they become law, will enable us to close one chapter of the coalmining industry orderly and neatly, and whatever the future of the coalmining industry were to be, whatever Government was in power, whatever principles it wished to adopt with regard to the coalmining industry, it would necessarily have to be a transition period, and this Bill we are discussing to-night is designed purely to deal with the transition period which must come to an end on the 31st August. I think I have been over most of the points required to be discussed in connection with this Bill, and I hope the House will allow it to have a Second Heading.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 61.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gange, E. Stanley


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Gardiner, James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Casey, T. W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Cautley, Henry S.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Glanville, Harold James


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Armitage, Robert
Chadwick, R. Burton
Gould, James C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Grant, James A.


Atkey, A. R.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Baird, John Lawrence
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Green, Albert (Derby)


Baldwin, Stanley
Clough, Robert
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gregory, Holman


Barlow, Sir Montague
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greig, Colonel James William


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gretton, Colonel John


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griggs, Sir Peter


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hallwood, Augustine


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Denison-Pender, John C.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Donald, Thompson
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hills, Major John Waller


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hinds, John


Breese, Major Charles E.
Edge, Captain William
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bridgeman, William Clive
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Briggs, Harold
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Britton, G. B.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Forestier-Walker, L
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Forrest, Walter
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Howard, Major S. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Shaw, William T, (Forfar)


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nail, Major Joseph
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Simm, M. T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Starkey, Captain John R.


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Oman, Charles William C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Kellaway, Frederick George
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Stevens, Marshall


Kidd, James
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stewart, Gershom


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Parker, James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Sugden, W. H.


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow. C.)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Lloyd, George Butler
Perkins, Walter Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Perring, William George
Townley, Maximilian G.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Turton, E. R.


Lorden, John William
Finkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Waddington, R.


Lort-Willlams, J.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wallace, J.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Pratt, John William
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Lynn, R. J.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Waring, Major Walter


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Purchase, H. G.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Rae, H. Norman
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Ramsden, G. T.
Whitla, Sir William


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Maddocks, Henry
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Mallalieu, F. W.
Reid, D. D.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Remer, J. B.
Wilson, Capt. A. S, (Holderness)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Renwick, George
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Mason, Robert
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J, (Richmond)


Matthews, David
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Middlebrook, Sir William
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, William Lane
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Moles, Thomas
Rodger, A. K.
Woolcock, William James U.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morrison, Hugh
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Younger, Sir George


Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)



Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Seager, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayward, Major Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Spencer, George A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Dawes, James Arthur
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Galbraith, Samuel
Onions, Alfred
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hancock, John George
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Neil M'Lean.


Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to alter the programme of business set down?

Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Yes, Sir. It is proposed to postpone the Army Vote announced for Thursday till Monday
next, and on Thursday to take the Report stage of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill. I may add that the Silver Coinage Bill (Second Reading) will be put down as the first Order for tomorrow.

The remaining Government Orders were, read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move,
That this House views with apprehension the slow rate of progress in the building of houses under the Housing and Town Planning Acts.
In raising, on the first private Member's motion, the question of housing, I think I shall be consulting not only my own wish but the general sentiment of the House in giving the first possible opportunity to the Minister of Health to give us an account of how the new measures he took are going forward. It needs hardly any words, in introducing a motion of this sort, to emphasise the continued and increasing urgency of the position. It is hardly too much to say that by the present position, in many cases, the mobility of employment is held up. A man cannot move from one employment to another, or from one place to another, to take up fresh employment because he cannot find a house to go to if he leaves his existing employment. The young man rising in life cannot get married because there is no house to go to. What has always seemed to me to be a particularly pathetic case is that of the discharged soldier who got married sometime when home on leave, who has managed to get through all right, and has come home expecting to find a house where he can start a new family life, only to find that he cannot get a house and has to live in one room, either in the house of his parents or his wife's parents; he cannot make that start in life which everyone knows who is married makes half the charm of life in starting, that is in having your own house to begin your married life in.
I need not urge that position, which is doubtless present in the minds of every Member of this House when he goes round his constituency, and certainly it is in
the mind of a great number of our constituents. I want to make one further point in beginning, and that is that we ought to recognise that this is not simply a working-class question. It is as much a middle-class question. There is nothing I remember with so much satisfaction as the occasion. I took last spring to press upon the Government the desirability of extending the scope of the Increase of Rent Restriction Act, and make it apply to what I may call middle-class houses. If the Government had not taken any action then I am perfectly certain that hundreds of thousands, I think that is hardly an exaggeration, of men and women of the middle classes, who have had very little increment, earned or unearned, during the War, would have found that they had either got to submit to a very great increase of rent or would have had to buy their houses at an exorbitant price.
On the very last day of last Session this House passed a measure which gave still further discretion to magistrates to extend the provisions of the Act. There is now a general discretion that eviction may be refused in any case which comes within the scope of the Act where alternative accommodation is not available. I want on that point to put a specific question to the Minister, and I hope he will give an answer to-night. That Act, unless extended by the Government, ends on Lady Day, 1921. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that people are buying up house property in the anticipation that the Act is coming to an end in 1921, and that the housing shortage is not coming to an end in 1921. Against that there are thousands of people who are extremely anxious to know the position. They want to know whether they are to settle with their landlord "while they are in the way with him," and whether they had better settle now. I do hope that the Minister will give us an assurance to-night that it is the policy of the Government to continue, if you like, in a modified form, the Restriction of Rent Act until such time as the houses are built, and until it is impossible for the owner of house property by an artificial monopoly value to exploit the occupiers of house property.

The Motion which I have moved is couched in very moderate language. I am bound to say, if the Minister
had not introduced the Act giving additional powers at the end of last Session, and which is now on the Statute Book, that Motion would stand in rather different terms. Possibly some hon. Member may remember the reply of a Presbyterian minister who was disputing with a Roman Catholic colleague as to the way of doing something. The Roman Catholic colleague said to him, "After all, even if you are right, may there not be something in my way as well as in yours?" The Presbyterian minister replied, "Yes, we both serve the same Master, you in your way and I in His." I am bound to say that there was a certain pontifical insistence by the Ministry of Health on their one and only way of solving this question and that the original Bill was all sufficient. The insufficiency of the original proposals is shewn by the fact that they have now granted additional facilities to public utility societies and private enterprise. I believe that there has been considerable delay because those new powers were not taken sooner. At one time I was afraid that there might be inscribed as the epitaph of the minister words which hon. Members will remember in the Koran: "This life is but a bridge; let no man build his house upon it."

I feel justified in making these criticisms which are of a retrospective character, because I did not on the passage of the Bill indulge purely in destructive criticism. I offered on that occasion certain constructive suggestions which I am glad to say were to some extent embodied in the Act passed at the end of last Session. I think that there is now a genuine effort to bring in both the public utility societies and private enterprise, and I am sure the House is very anxious to know how far these efforts have proved successful. I think the House will agree if you are going to assist private enterprise you must comply with two conditions: The first is that the terms which you offer must be adequate to induce private enterprise to come in and build and, secondly, that those terms must be reasonable, that is to say that while they give the builder a fair profit the balance of the benefit passes to the occupier of the house. When under this Act either the private builder or the public utility societies have to decide whether it is economically possible for them to take advantage of its provisions, they want to
know one basic fact and that is, what rent are they to be able to get for the houses which they put up? The Minister will admit that that will depend largely upon what rents the local authorities are going to charge for corresponding houses which they set up in the same areas. We had a very long discussion last session on certain regulations which were laid on the Table. Those regulations were ultimately withdrawn, and the Minister substituted regulations which I think are now on the Table and which seem to be much more satisfactory. I take it that it is quite clear, and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, that both now and after 1927 the liability of the local authority is limited to the produce of the penny rate. It is very essential that not only that private enterprise and public utility societies, but also that the local authority should know what kind of rent the Ministry will insist on being charged. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us to-night precise figures showing what is the rent in the Metropolitan area for houses and in the provincial cities and in agricultural districts. If he cannot give us precise figures, can he give us a figure which will say so much per £100 of cost, because we really do want to know where we stand in this matter; and a figure is very much more effective than a formula. What we have got so far is a formula as to the rent being the best obtainable "having regard to all the conditions. That as an abstract proposition is admirable, but in the concrete to the builders who are going to erect the houses, or the public utility societies, it really does not mean anything. They want to know what is the precise rent for a house of this kind which the local authority is going to charge. That does not only go to rent; it also goes to the purchase price on sale, because the public utility societies and the local authorities have power to sell their houses. They want to know, therefore, whether they are going to be undersold in the open market by a local authority which has built houses. Considerable impetus will be given to building if the Minister can give us an assurance on that point.

I have asked a certain number of questions, all of them I hope, relevant, but I am quite conscious that one is not justified in bringing forward a Motion of
this kind in a purely critical or even in an inquiring spirit. I hope to offer, as I always try to do both inside and outside this House in connection with these schemes, some constructive suggestions, because I am sure that we all want to help in this matter. I think I am right in saying that the average number of houses put up in a year before the war was something like 80,000. Let the House realise what that means. It means that until we build 80,000 houses per year we shall not have caught up even with the normal yearly requirements. We have got to do much more. We have got to make up the deficiency over all' the years of war. Do not let us minimise the task. We mean to get it through, but it is a vast undertaking, and I do appeal to Members on whatever side they are that it is so vast an undertaking that we want every single authority, every single combination, and every single class of people who can come in and build a house, and that we ought not to take any academic objection to the particular form in which they are going to act.

Whoever is going to build these houses, there are three essential conditions which must be present. First of all, cheapness of construction; secondly, expedition in building: and, thirdly, output. All these are inter-dependent. I shall try to summarise very shortly some of the factors which govern the position and the action which we can take. Let me begin with the Ministry itself. I am quite sure that what is wanted there—I believe that the Minister is getting at it—is that there shall be the fullest possible devolution of executive powers to local representatives of the Ministry throughout the areas. You want to give your local man on the spot the power to decide the question on the spot. That really will make for an enormous saving in expenditure. Transport is difficult and production is difficult. A person undertaking a scheme suddenly finds that he cannot get a particular type of material. He wants to substitute something else, or he finds that some point in the design cannot be complied with without a delay of weeks and even months. It is a practical proposition such as we have to decide in everyday life, and if the man on the spot can say "yes, that is a reasonable thing, go ahead, make the substitution," it is going to make all the difference, not only in getting the house quickly, but in
the price. Builders who are taking contracts now have put in a cost variation clause. I do not think there are many absolutely firm contracts, and, even if there arc, I am quite sure that in tendering the builder, if he thinks that he is likely to be held up by delays of this kind, puts in a large extra sum to cover the contingency. It will have a further advantage. It means that you will have the opportunity of using to the full local material. That is not only going to be cheap in itself, but it will also be an advantage when you come to deal with some of the more difficult labour questions.

I want two things. I want the local officer of the Ministry of Health to have full powers to decide these things quickly. The great thing that is needed in the Civil Service is that people should be able to take responsibility and give decisions. I am perfectly certain that in nine cases out of ten a man would rather have the answer "No" given to him by return of post than an indeterminate answer or even an affirmative answer after it has been minuted and passed through all the stages through which these things have to go. The Minister of Health is a practical man, and I know that he appreciates this point. May I make another practical suggestion. I do hope that when things come to Whitehall they will come to the same man. An authority has a housing scheme. It comes up to one particular official in the Ministry for approval. If possible, lot the first man to whom it comes be able to give the approval, but, when that scheme comes back again, for Heaven's sake let it come to the same man. I have had complaints of schemes being held up in the Ministry through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman, because the thing has not come back to Mr. Brown who first dealt with it, but to Mr. Jones, necessitating the whole scheme being argued out afresh. That is a very simple and practical question of administration with which the right hon. Gentleman can deal. When dealing with the thing on the spot, give the local officials power. I do not want a horde of new officials. I do not think that it needs a great new staff. It needs adequate men on the spot with adequate powers and with determination and authority to use them. I want to be sure, also, that women are being brought into this scheme. It is essential, if we are to get practical
results at a cheap price. I am perfectly certain that there is no Member of the Government who would dare to build a house or even to take a furnished house without taking his wife into consultation. If the Minister denies that, he is either unmarried or—

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I did not deny it.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: I do hope that in this big national problem women are being brought in, because i am quite sure that they know the practical things that are wanted in houses. I want to be sure that they are there to see that the practical and necessary things are insisted upon and that the other things are allowed to go by the board. I have seen the Ministry criticised for agreeing, in particular cases, to modifications of the high standards which are being set. That is the kind of criticism which is academic and wholly unreasonable. There must be discretion in these matters
We needs must love the highest, when we set it.
If we have really no prospect of getting it, or if it requires the eye of faith to see the highest, let us in common sense realise something little less Olympian. If we ask a discharged soldier who has come back from the Front, and who, with his wife and child, has only one room to live in in his mother-in-law's house, whether he would rather have a castle in Spain or an Army hut in Tooting, it is only the most academic pundit who would refrain from guessing the right answer.
Of course the crux of this problem is the question of finance. We all receive a very illuminating broadsheet issued by the Ministry of Health, and I have read it with increasing interest and increasing approval. But this broadsheet is rather like a legal document. It consists partly of recitals and partly of the operative part. We really only come down to business—I am not saying that the stages you have to go through are too long or too many, so long as you get the answer quickly, indeed, I do not think there are too many stages—but we really do not come down to the operative part until we reach the stage of a contract for houses which has been placed against money which has been found to pay for that contract. That is really the operative part of the document,
but if I am able to extract that information from it, it is what I look for week by week. I want to say nothing which can deter anybody from subscribing the maximum, and something more, to local housing bonds. It is a real duty, as much a duty as it was to subscribe to the War Loans. But it is obvious that the more you have to borrow the higher will be the rate of interest at which you borrow. What is the rate of interest which the Minister expects the local authorities will be able to borrow at? If you can reduce the amount of money which is to be found by the public you will make the task easier. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explore a little more closely the possibility of making a grant or subsidy in the shape of fully-paid housing bonds which the builder will be able to discount at his bank, because it might even be worth while to pay a little more in the long run to get that done. There are two ways of getting the money, there is the attracting investors to subscribe for bonds, and the borrowing from the bank by the builders. In a vast operation like this you want to combine the two, and you want to have recourse to the bank for the balance which you cannot get from the general fund. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave that possibility unexplored.
There are two factors which, it seems to me, are absolutely vital—both to the question of cost and the question of output. One affects Capital and the other affects Labour. Is the Minister satisfied that the prices which are being paid to-day for building materials and fittings are in no case excessive? I admit I have not got exact proof. It is extraordinarily difficult to have exact proof in these matters. While I am quite sure there are many trade arrangements in these days which are absolutely necessary and beneficial, because you cannot conduct business in water-tight compartments, yet when I watch the prices of these various building commodities and fittings, when I see them rise to an extent which does not seem to bear a direct ratio to the ordinary increase of cost, I feel bound to ask whether there are any arrangements in these trades which are unnecessary and whether it is never the case that some commission is paid without corresponding services being rendered? I hope the Board of Trade will use the full powers which we
have given them to make the fullest possible investigation into these things. My hon. Friends opposite will, I think, agree that it would be possible more effectually thus to inquire into these than some of the profiteering undertakings upon which representatives of local authorities have embarked in other cases. I have been frank on this point. I want to be equally frank on the Labour side. Is the House sure that the record of Labour is absolutely clear? It is no answer from one section to say that the other section is in fault. This is not a question which is being tried one side against the other before an independent and disinterested judge. Both sides in this matter have to answer at the bar of public opinion.
There is undoubtedly an enormous shortage of labour. The building trade sent its men to the War in large numbers and they gained a very honourable record. Many formerly in the building trade have been diverted into other industries. There is a shortage and there is a need for reinforcement. Yet the door is shut or only a little ajar. I do not want to elaborate that further. I understand there will be an opportunity of discussing that side of the question to-morrow at some greater length, but it is impossible to touch upon this question without including that within the scope of one's purview. You cannot leave out the question of reinforcements. We hear talk of restrictions. Our challenge is denied. I admit I cannot point to any written restriction. I have not looked for a written restriction but I have seen a steady diminution in the number of bricks which are laid by men in that industry. I will grant at once that there is no written restriction to which one can point, but some of the unwritten laws are the sternest and the most effective. You can look through all the statutes on the Statute Book and you will not find any reference to the Cabinet, and yet that body has, or had until recently, a very real existence. These unwritten laws are very often quite as strong as any written law. If there is no written law is there a convention which is holding things up in the building trade? But I go further. When we were taught the Commandments we were told that each "Thou shalt not" connoted a corresponding "Thou shalt." Has that been considered by the leaders of the building industry on the Labour side? Surely there should be not only
"You shall not restrict output," but there is implied "You shall do all you possibly can to get a maximum output." I have been taunted from the Benches opposite that we have not been very quick and we have not yet made this a land for heroes to dwell in. Perhaps we have not, but has your conduct in this matter up to now been very heroic? The man who deliberately restricts output in the building industry to-day is just as much a profiteer at the expense of his fellows as the merchant who tries to rig the market. I would make an appeal to the Government. I believe everyone wants to help in this matter. Take us in the House of Commons fully into your confidence. Take the country into your confidence. It wants to know your difficulties and to help you in your difficulties. The force of public opinion, once it is informed what those difficulties are, once it is informed what it is that is holding you up, if things are holding you up, will be too strong to be resisted. Take us into your confidence. Tell us your difficulties. Your difficulties are our difficulties. Our resources are your resources.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not wish to enter into a criticism of the administration of the Ministry of Health. There was a time during last Session when I feared that that Minister would very likely fall under the burden of centralised control and administration which was laid upon him by the housing legislation which was agreed to, but I am glad to recognise that he is surmounting his difficulties and that he has been very successful, as far as the outside public can judge, and as far as local authorities can judge, in freeing his Department from red tape, and now from all accounts it is working very satisfactorily. The modifications of the Statutory Rules and Orders to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, giving much more elasticity to local authorities, are a case in point, and anyone who has had experience of the London Housing Board will know that from being a by-word for obstructive inefficiency a few months ago, they have made a remarkable development and now are capable of giving big decisions in a short time, and almost of answering letters by return of post. The satisfactory working of this administrative machinery has only brought into stronger relief the inefficient methods which this
House has so far had explained to it to deal with this problem. There are two fundamental obstacles which remain unsolved, finance, and the inadequacy of the building trade under present conditions to meet the greatly increased demands which are thrust upon it. The financial position is that in the case of local authorities with more than £200,000 rateable value, housing loans must be provided locally. Smaller local authorities beneath that rateable line are financed by the Treasury. As those smaller authorities are estimated by the Ministry of Health at about 60 per cent., about 40 per cent. of the money will have to be raised locally.
9.0 P.M.
It is no exaggeration to say that the greatest municipal authorities in this country are in a state of consternation at the burden which has been placed upon them I will only give one case. I have here a report of the Birmingham City Council Finance Committee. They point out that owing to the authorisation of housing bonds at the rate of 5½ per cent. a considerable amount of money which they have borrowed at 5 per cent. has been called in. On top of that the Treasury has since offered 5¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds, which have the very novel feature that they are repayable at 12 months' notice. This has necessarily dried up perhaps the most important source of borrowing on the part of these large municipalities, because they formerly had the field of these short term mortgage bonds almost to themselves. The Birmingham Finance Committee reports that there is such dislocation in the local money market that they cannot even hope to raise the £500,000 which they were taking steps to issue at the time when these bombshells fell, and owing to the fact that they have to raise £4,000,000 this year for other purposes the City Council has now decided that it will sign no more housing contracts under present conditions. They do not stand alone. There are many other large municipalities in the same position. I need only instance Southampton and Portsmouth, which find themselves absolutely unable to finance the housing obligations which they feel are all important to be faced in the national interest. The position of the smaller rural authority is even more serious. Those rural authorities, and the
small county councils, have not the large capitalists to whom the large city councils can in many cases appeal. I have been given the case of a rural district council—I will not offend it by mentioning its name—and the centre of this rural district, which is typical of many, is a conglomeration of colliery villages, with a mud heap in the centre, which is dignified by the name of a town. It has grown up without any industry except the coal industry, and the inhabitants have to live in its grimy atmosphere owing to the needs of their colliery work. The rest of the area from which its rateable value of £230,000 is derived is of the same character. There are no landowners in the district in a position to put up money for housing. Who is going to find it? Surely under the present conditions of uncertainty in the mining industry no one will expect the colliery proprietors to do it. They probably feel that before the houses are built they will be expropriated in view of the demand in certain quarters of this House for nationalisation. You cannot expect the trade unions to put up the money. They must keep their money in a liquid form, and they certainly should not invest in the security which they could not realise, because it has only a very restricted local market, and it is not quoted on the London Stock Exchange. Therefore, these districts, with the greatest need for housing, districts which are most neglected from the point of view of houses, are very often in the worst position to find the necessary funds.
There is only one obvious way out of the difficulty and that is a national housing loan. The taxpayer in any case is to be responsible for all expenditure over the proceeds of a penny rate. Quite apart from the housing point of view it is obviously unsound from the financial point of view to raise this money other than centrally. You would get much cheaper money and much better financial arrangements if the matter is dealt with by the Treasury rather than having a multitude of local authorities bidding one against the other. The money will not all be wanted at the same time. It is easier for the Treasury to organise by means of propaganda campaign the gradual collection of this money for housing purposes and to give it out as it is wanted, but it would be almost impossible for the local
authorities to go on collecting the money in the small instalments which would be necessary year by year to meet the calls upon them in connection with housing. The problem is unmanageable by the local authorities but quite manageable by the Treasury. I will not go into the figures. My hon. Friend mentioned that 80,000 was the normal housing rate before the War. This year we shall have to build 100,000 houses, and in subsequent years at least 200,000 houses. The last figures of the right hon. Gentleman, contained in the fortnightly housing returns, show that the houses are costing now £742 on an average, apart from the cost of land, sowers, and roads, and when you add the capitalised value of the 25 per cent. allowance for empties, administration and repairs, you are not going to build these houses on the average for less than £1,000 each. That means that you want £100,000,000 in the first year and £200,000,000 in the subsequent years. In any case the Exchequer is finding about 60 per cent. of the cost for small authorities with less than £200,000 rateable value. While they are providing this housing money, could they not find the extra 40 to 50 millions a year which will be necessary to provide the whole amount required for all authorities? It is not that you will be borrowing more but simply that you will be putting the responsibility upon the central authority.
With respect to the building trade, it is admittedly unequal under the present conditions to the demands that are being put upon it, and will be put upon it, not only for housing, but for our industrial revival for many years to come. The last census showed that over 800,000 men were employed in the building industry. I am advised now that the most liberal estimate does not place it at more than 600,000. It is safe to say that for an indefinite number of years twice that number will be needed in the national industry. The fear is that the Government in this matter is drifting, and it is a matter in regard to which drifting is extremely dangerous. So far as we can judge by public evidence, the Government are simply using violent statements as to the defects of certain trade union regulations. This is not a matter where abuse is going to do any good. Violent statements have been made as to the obstructive attitude of certain trade anions and they have naturally met with
equally violent replies. The matter is not going to solve itself in that way. In any case, it would take far longer than we could afford to wait. There is very much suspicion on both sides and a great deal of the suspicion is by no means difficult to understand. The builders are in rather a suspicious frame of mind. They are sore because they have been treated in certain sections of the Press and by certain controversialists as thieves and rogues. I am sorry, to say that one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who ought to help in the solution of this housing difficulty, is not altogether blameless in the matter. These builders are in an extremely difficult position. Owing to the unstable condition of the industry, and the impossibility of seeing a few months ahead, they have to put into their tenders, if they want to secure themselves against disastrous loss, a far larger margin than they would have done before the War, and there are so many demands for the employment of their resources, that they are naturally not keen on going into this class of work, which, under the present conditions of uncertainty, is very risky indeed. The Minister of Health has taken a very wise course with the builders in allowing an alternative to the fixed tender in the shape of working at a fixed rate of profit based on prime cost, He is also allowing and is encouraging, I believe, in certain cases, a method whereby that system is extended by giving the builder a certain percentage of the saving which he may effect on the estimated figure which has been arrived at by competent authorities. I only say that incidentally.
I return to the position as between the builder and the workman. The builder has some natural excuse for feeling rather sore, uneasy, and mistrustful. On the other hand, the workman has a very natural fear of unemployment. Under the conditions of unregulated competition, which he remembers before the war, he knows that he was very often out of work. If no thrift and no hard work can ensure him against the tragedy of want and a broken home, it is not altogether to be wondered at that men, in ignorance of the whole situation, should feel that it is bettor to take no risks, to work slowly and to keep down the number of those working, so that the employment which they are enjoying should last the longer
Of course, we know that under present conditions any idea of that kind is absolutely absurd, but it is no good abusing people for having that in their minds. We have to bring it home to them. If by working harder and increasing output the purchasing power of money is increased—a great gain—men will naturally want security that their wages shall not fall so as to leave them no benefit for their harder work. We have to get over this prejudice and suspicion which survives from the conditions before the war. Even if trade unions were to cease the alleged obstruction, I doubt very much whether labour in the building trade would increase sufficiently to solve our difficulties without Government action. It is very doubtful, if you compare the rates of wages, whether builders labourers are sufficiently paid to ensure an adequate supply under present condition's, because, although their earnings are nominally higher, we have to take into account that that is counterbalanced by the loss of pay incurred in that industry under pre-war conditions.
We have also to remember that recruits cannot come into that industry, unaided, as men. They can only come in as boys, because during their period of instruction men could not possibly live on the wages they would earn. We cannot afford to wait for boys to grow up into the building industry, and it is imperative in the national interest that we should train in some way those who missed their turn as boys owing to Army service. This is a matter far too large to be settled by employers or workers without the help of the State. The Government must take a hand. They ought to prepare a scheme for training ex-service men—men who have missed their chance as boys—and bringing them into the building trade, in consultation with the trade unions concerned. Before they can do that we must have the facts before the House and the country. It is alleged that the output of bricklayers per hour is now only two-thirds of what it was before the War. Well, let us have an enquiry and sift this and other allegations of decreased output. If the facts turn out as stated, the Government would get invaluable strength from public opinion when they deal with the matter. I would ask the Minister of Health to
urge upon the Government the appointment of an inter-departmental committee to go into the whole question without any further delay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) and other trade union leaders have invited such an enquiry. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government hang back. I know that this matter is not one concerning the Minister of Health alone, but I feel that he could do very much to expedite its satisfactory tackling by the Government. There is at the present time an enormous amount of impatience on this housing question. I am sure that every member of the House must realise that if he has been among his constituents lately. It is a matter of great danger, because great expectations have been aroused. I will conclude with a story which has reached me from my constituency to show the present shortage of houses. A man was walking along the bank of a river and saw a crowd. When he came up to it he was very sad to see that a friend of his had been drowned. He went off quickly to the house agent and said, "Jones has been drowned. Can you let me have his house"? The house agent replied, "I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I have already let it to the man who pushed him into the river.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am quite sure that I express the feelings of every Member on the Labour Benches when I say that we join with the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken in the view that we should treat this question as broadly and as generously as possible and avoid all abuse of one another. I agree also that it is far too urgent and important to be the subject of diatribes on those lines. We have to make every constructive suggestion we can make and it is in that spirit that I shall address the House on the subject. There are three problems at the moment with regard to the housing difficulty from the point of view of labour: first, the problem of dilution and output, which are really associated with each other; secondly, the problem of trusts and rings in regard to the supply of housing materials; and, thirdly, the problem of finance, whether from the national or the local point of view. I understand that to-morrow in this House there will be an opportunity for fully and frankly discussing the question
of dilution, We therefore propose to postpone that part of the Debate, as far as we are concerned, beyond offering this observation, that many Members of this House, and certainly a very large section of the outside public, seem to assume that all the dilution should readily come from the ranks of the manual workers. There is nothing wrong or unjust and there is nothing contrary to the best and highest interests of the State in manual workers protecting themselves by regulations, by trade union devices and by maintaining their corporations for their good in the industries in which they are engaged. We know, of course, that at a very critical time in the country's history the medical men proved themselves to be members of the most powerful trade union in the country, and the lawyers, of whom I speak with great respect, are equally well organised for their protection. We have never complained of that, but we have always argued that a similar right should be extended to people engaged in manual occupations, because, after all, their training is just as sacred in its way as the training of professional men.
In the building trade the great diminution in numbers is not disputed, but we have got to ask ourselves what dilution would achieve, and if a controversy with the trade unions on this important matter would really help us towards the solution of the housing problem? Many or the operations in the building trade are skilled and can only be learned as a result of considerable experience. For many years before the war broke out we had very few apprentices in the building trade in this country. I regret to think that even in the present year with the tremendous housing shortage confronting us and with apparently permanent and full employment for large numbers of men hardly any apprentices are being trained in probably the majority of the districts in this country. That is a lamentable and very striking fact. But the dilution according to many of the advocates would apply only to unskilled processes, that is what is generally called labouring work. I suggest that you have at this time all the dilution you probably want.
There is no particular difficulty in any man starting as a labourer in the building trade. I speak more particularly of Scottish conditions, but substantially the same conditions obtain south of
the Tweed. Excluding the skilled and semi-skilled processes you depend upon a very great deal of unskilled labour and if men are willing to engage in that work there is no particular union regulation which would debar them from doing so, and even if they are not organised they take the advantage of what the unions win for them. These things must be admitted, but I should not be opposed personally—and I am expressing only my personal view—to the desire that this matter should be fully and impartially investigated at the earliest possible moment. Bound up with dilution is the problem of output. Under that head we lose time in the discussion of output in this country by assuming that it is a problem of a human character, shall I say, confined to manual workers. There is a very great diminution in the output of ideas according to many of our current writers. There is a great diminution of the output of professional people which is admitted by impartial critics of existing conditions. Diminished output is fastened, by a great section of the population, only on manual wage earners, but if we look at the foreign press we will see that at this hour it is a question which applies to Western Europe, the United States of America and other parts of the world, and that this question of diminished output is really a world problem which goes far beyond the human factor. It is a problem of transport, of finance and of a hundred and one other conditions which perhaps we do not sufficiently realise, and I think that it is unjust to say, as many do say, that labour is willing to consent to diminished output for its own purposes. All responsible persons in labour—I think I am safe in saying that that accounts for every Member in this House—recognise that we must have the maximum output in this country. But they always attach to that the condition too often forgotten, that we have got to get a scientific distribution of wealth. If Members can bring together the two propositions then there is not a single thing to divide us across the floor of this Chamber.
On the other two points I shall be purposely brief. I desire to criticise very freely indeed the attitude of the Government towards the trusts and combines in the building trade. Very often this is regarded as a stunt by people in this
House and the people on these benches who are unfit to govern. But all I am going to say now has already been embodied in impartial reports by committees or bodies appointed by the Government from time to time to consider this problem. In the report on the Committee on Trusts there was a section devoted to the question of building material and the existence of rings in the supply of building material in this country, and that report made it perfectly clear that there was three classes of material on which we depend. There was a class which was not controlled by a ring. There was a second class which was partially controlled, and there was a third class which was practically completely controlled, and the second and third classes accounted at the date of that report for about 50 per cent. of the building materials necessary in this country. Now although that report was presented a year or two ago, the Government have systematically refused to take action until very recently to deal with the existence of trusts and rings in Great Britain. I. personally, and many other Members of this House have put question after question to the Government as to what they intended to do in reference to this problem. We have been promised anti-trust legislation at an early date but the Government have not yet indicated when it will be introduced, and only now within the past few days we have been offered an inquiry into the existence of rings in the supply of building material.
Everybody knows that the trust influence in British industry has made enormous strides during the War. No one can have had access to the files of controlled establishment or have read the records of impartial investigations without being thoroughly convinced of that. We see evidence of it in the world of finance in the amalgamation of banks. We see it in the realm of industry and commerce. I am not complaining for a single moment, because I and many of my colleagues regard it as a necessary process in the evolution of the capitalist system in this country. That progress has been made, and the unfortunate fact is that at this hour the Government has allowed these building materials to be controlled by, and to be at the mercy of, rings and combines, and they have had to take their tenders on the footing of that
great imposition on the State. We have seen tenders in most parts of the country which indicate that the cost of houses runs to anything from £700 to £1,000, and these are not large dwellings at all, houses suitable for Members of the Government, but the humble dwellings which we on these Benches as a rule have to occupy. There is not the slightest doubt that if the local authorities and the State are to pay that price housing is going to be a very costly experiment indeed.
We in Scotland computed that in terms of the Report of the Royal Commission it would cost, in existing circumstances, not less than £200,0()0,000 to £250,000,000 to solve our housing problem. If that is what Scotland requires, with all its modesty, I hesitate to think of what is going to be involved before England, and probably Ireland, are included too. The Government should have embarked at the earliest possible moment on a study of those rings and combines, and they should have done everything in their power to get down the price of these building materials in order to economise in the solution of this difficulty. My complaint is that they have come along with a form of anti-trust legislation, or at all events with a promise of it and of inquiry into this matter, too late in the day, after the evil has been allowed to operate, after the pace has been set, and when we shall find it very difficult indeed to go back. Probably Ministers themselves would be inclined to concede that they have not taken the best course in this very important matter.
With regard to the financial difficulty, we have always urged from the Labour Benches that this was a matter for the State. We recognise that a very large proportion of the houses existing in this country have been provided by private enterprise, but that for reasons which we could not control private enterprise has broken down in regard to housing. We thought that the scheme financially was perfectly clear and plain when the Government decided to provide the money for housing and to limit the liability of the local authorities to the product of a penny rate. By that scheme we believed we could get the houses and we also thought it would be our business frankly and courageously as a State to find the money. Since that time the proposal has been made to embark on an effort to find
the money in the locality. I am sure that the great majority of the Members of this House who know the conditions under which the local authorities are working to-day will agree that there is very little hope of getting any substantial sum in that way. All these local authorities are faced with heavy arrears of work. We have only to look at the magnitude of the municipal debts to realise how very difficult it is going to be to raise money on those lines. Even if we did place that duty on their shoulders, I think the local authorities are still entitled to argue, as they did two or three days ago, that they will be compelled to offer at least what the Government is offering for money, and that will have the effect of placing in the most serious position all the money which they have already raised in the localities, their existing debts, and will raise problems as to transfer and conversion which will make our last state worse than our present.
Surely the Government must appreciate that this can be most economically done by some form of central effort? I am going to make what I believe to be a practical suggestion to the Government for their consideration. I think we can divide what we have to do in this country into two classes. There are probably more classes, but I will take two. There is work which we must do and there is work which might be postponed. Many of us have studied the long list of companies which are being floated at the present time, and one of the most striking facts which emerges from that study is this—that not only is there a tremendous amount of money involved, but there is no need to appeal to the outside public to subscribe; they can get that money in small groups or syndicates. Where these companies are being floated for beneficent purposes or for commercial progress I am not going to complain, but we are entitled to complain that a very large amount of money is being raised for the purpose of what we can rightly describe as idle luxury, or one form or another of waste. Is that a wise use of capital in this country? I am no lover of compulsion in any shape or form, but I do suggest that we are simply refusing to face the facts unless we demand that at this crisis capital must be directed into those channels which would minister in the highest sense to the common good. If the State and the Government would face
that problem, I think it would be found that the reserves of resources were greater than had been imagined, and that the money required could be raised. We must also find some method of keeping down the rate of interest.
I cannot conclude without saying that we agree at once that every discussion of this kind must be constructive in character. We believe that these are constructive suggestions, because they would help to keep down the cost of housing, and we believe also that if effect were given to our desires as regards trust influence and the financial difficulty, there would be a real response on the part of labour in this country to the solution of this great difficulty.

Mr. G. THORNE: I do not know of any subject which more readily than this would lend itself to political debate. The mover and seconder of the Resolution obviated any temptation in that direction, and brought the House down to the real consideration of the vital question of how houses can be obtained to meet the needs of the people. This housing difficulty is such a pressing one, that all political considerations are forgotten, and every Member of this House, I believe, is animated solely by a desire to assist the Government in any way he possibly can in securing the end in view. The Resolution is a very modest one, but I think I have never known a Resolution submitted to this House which I think can be supported by every hon. Member better than the present one. The terms of the Resolution are
That this House views with apprehension the slow rate of progress in the building of houses under the Housing and Town Planning Acts.
Without any distinction of party, I believe the whole House and the whole nation view with apprehension the very slow progress that is being made, and I am thankful to the hon. Member who, after being successful in the ballot, has used his opportunity to bring this vital question before the consideration of the House. We want to see that apprehension allayed. It is vitally necessary that it should be allayed, and it cannot be allayed by what private Members say. They may hold their own individual views and express them, but the anxiety of the country can only be allayed by an authoritive statement from the responsible Minister.
I could have wished that after the mover and seconder had made their speeches my right hon. Friend opposite (Dr. Addison) had found it possible to immediately reply, because those two hon. Members pressed home some very strong probing questions, and it is those questions we want answered absolutely and fully in some way in order to allay the apprehension referred to in the Resolution. I only intend to emphasise the questions which those hon. Members have so admirably put before us. Of course the Government admit that there is a very great shortage of houses. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution indicated what he understood was the ordinary pre-War provision of houses. From my information I should say that he rather lessened than exaggerated what pre-War building was, and I should like to know from the Government, who alone can speak with authority, if they will tell us what it was, and then contrast what the pre-War rate of building was with what the actual building was during the last twelve months.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: They were post-war prices.

Mr. THORNE: When we realise the contrast between the two and realise that the normal rate is so far from being reached, and that the shortage which necessitated all this at the end of the War is now being added to, the problem becomes all the more serious, and the apprehensions are all the better founded. I am the more anxious to hear those facts stated by the Government authoritatively in order that the country may understand what is the ground for this apprehension. The hon. Member opposite put this question to my right hon. Friend and I would like to emphasise it. In regard to the houses already built, we would like to know what rents the Government are going to insist upon. This is one of the most vital and practical questions we have to consider. I know that one authority, having built a certain number of houses, desired to let them. The housing committee prepared its scheme as to what the rents should be. They submitted those rents to the Government and the Government did not consider them sufficiently high and somewhat raised them, and when the scheme came back to the local council and was submitted
by the housing committee, the council sent it back to the committee because they refused to submit to the people such high rents. If you cannot let the houses at rents which the people can and will pay—

Dr. ADDISON: I know the case which the hon. Member refers to, but I understand that there was not any shortage of applicants for the houses.

Mr. THORNE: That hardly meets my point.

Dr. ADDISON: It is a very material point.

Mr. THORNE: My point is that the Council referred the proposal back to the Housing Committee because they considered the rents too high to submit to the people. The whole question of the rent is a vital matter that has to be considered, and that is a point on which I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give us a definite reply to-night. To my mind the way my hon. Friend put the question was very effective. We want to know in regard to the houses being provided for these working people what rents they will be expected to pay. I think the other question put by my right hon. Friend is also of vital importance, and that is supposing the Government insist upon local bodies providing the money what interest do they expect those who lend the money will receive? The situation in that respect is one of the most serious we can possibly have to face. My hon. Friend has already indicated the difficulties in the way, and I invite my right hon. Friend to tell us what interest he anticipates the local authorities will be expected to pay for the money they borrow. I also wish to ask whether the Government intend to insist upon the method announced of securing the money through the local bodies. I for one am very doubtful whether the money is ever going to be secured in that way.
I understood the hon. Member, who seconded this proposal, took that view, and strongly urged that the only way of facing this question was to do what we thought was going to be done entirely as a national matter, and that the money should be provided through national bonds. I invite the Government to tell us precisely what course they are going to take. I am more anxious about the
reply of the Minister than I am of speaking myself or listening to any other private Member. I believe the nation throws the responsibility of this matter upon the Government, and they are not prepared to have it thrown upon the municipalities, on the one hand, or upon labour upon the other hand. They look to the Government now to provide the schemes whereby these houses can be provided and their apprehensions allayed, and I hope the Minister will take the earliest opportunity in this Debate and in the fullest possible way answer the questions put to him, and I earnestly hope that the apprehensions so widely held may be largely allayed.

Mr. MYERS: If I now encroach upon the time of the House at so early' a stage it is because I come fresh from the council chamber of a large municipality, and I have for some considerable time been engaged in the discussions and the attempt to carry out the administration of this great question with, I should say, more or less indifferent success. A year or two ago, when our municipalities were sending deputations to Whitehall and the Government Departments generally, there was held out to us some measure of hope that this matter would be, at any rate, dealt with in a businesslike fashion. I remember being on a deputation to the then President of the Local Government Board as far back as September, 1916, and we were told at that time that when the War was ended schemes would probably be in operation which would provide both for the civilian population and the returned soldiers. It was nearly a year after that when the circular reached the local authorities setting forth the conditions under which houses should be erected, and I think I am right in saying that it filled every enthusiast upon this question with consternation and dismay. The questions which were addressed to the Local Government Board arising out of that circular were voluminous in character, and some of the replies which we received tended more to confusion than to enlightenment, and the discussion which raged round the responsibility of the penny rate was difficult to understand and when understood difficult to put into operation. The Government were prepared at that time to take the responsibility of a penny rate or a sum equal to a
penny rate, and the whole of the financial obligation in addition to that put upon the local authorities. These were told that they could fix the rents of the houses at a figure which would compare with houses providing similar accommodation in the same district, but the agitation of the local authorities which came along subsequently caused the Government to abandon that idea, and they limited the operation of the penny rate to the responsibilities of the local authorities.
They then turned round upon the question of rent, and, answering the call of the speculative builders of the country, the Local Government Board at once, in a circular to the local authorities, gave the local authorities the hint that they would be expected to approximate as nearly as possible to the economic rent of the houses that were erected, and with that suggestion to the local authorities they turned us into the open market for materials to enter into competition with one another and with the Government itself for the limited amount of building materials available in the country. They did more. Local authorities were instructed to go into the open market for loans, and in the teeth of the request and the desire of the local authorities that the Government should finance housing loans, we were turned into the country in competition with one another in the money market to secure what satisfaction we could in that direction. As the question developed in its relationship between the Local Government Board and the Ministry of Health and the local authorities, restrictions and limitations were applied in order to keep down the cost of the houses. Instead of tackling the high price of building materials, a standard of economy and a limited line of construction were imposed upon the local authorities, and instead of dealing with the prices of raw materials, we had to cut down the amenities of the houses that were proposed to be erected. The housing manual of the Ministry of Health, an excellent document in its way, has at least one very objectionable feature, for it imposes upon local authorities the necessity of having rooms eight feet in height. That is an altogether unsatisfactory feature so far as our industrial towns are concerned, and as one who is familiar with the limitations of a working-class house, there
is only one thing that I would do to the person who supports, approves, or demands a living-room eight feet high, and that penalty would be to ask him to live in it and stop there for a decent length of time. It is altogether an objectionable feature of modern house building to confine the height of rooms to eight feet, and I remember coming down to Whitehall with a deputation and contending to be permitted to erect houses with rooms eight feet three inches high. The Government declined to permit the three inches, but we were contending for that point in a room, containing three Government officials, which would probably be sixteen or twenty feet in height. These restrictions and limitations, in order to effect economy, have been carried too far in the directions of sacrificing the amenities of these dwellings.
I agree with the hon. Member opposite who has discussed this matter from the point of view of finance, and I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to consult a report of a deputation to the President of the Local Government Board in October, 1918. It was a representative gathering from the country boroughs of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and with the President of the Local Government Board at that time this question of housing was discussed in all its ramifications. I would respectfully draw his attention to the matter relating to finance, and he will there find that what is being discussed to-day is nothing new, having regard to the information that has been given to his Department. It is not, I think, a question of housing bonds. It is not a question as to whether housing loans are raised in the ordinary way, if loans are raised by municipalities, whether from private individuals or from the Commissioners who supply local authorities with funds. The great question is what is paid for the loans when the loans are got, and my view is that the housing development of the future is not going to be satisfactorily carried out with housing loans on a 5 per cent. basis. I am of opinion that local authorities ought not to be asked to carry on housing schemes under conditions which compel the cost of a house to be paid for three times over in sixty years in interest alone. Some better method will have to be found if housing schemes are to be a success in the future.
10.0 P.M.
The schemes which have been submitted to the Ministry of Health are the direct indication, in my judgment, of the willingness of local authorities to undertake this work, but when we compare the number of schemes that have been submitted with the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted, we find that even that number is insignificant. When we come to analyse the problem from another point of view and compare the number of houses that have been erected or are in process of erection with the number of schemes that have been submitted, it is quite evident that something is wrong at some point or another. The fact that local authorities have tendered a large number of schemes, and are only building a very small proportion of houses in comparison is proof positive, in my judgment, that there is something wrong at some point or other. I believe that difficulty to be the great one of finance. There is another side to this problem which has been ignored, or has not been referred to by any of the hon. Members who have already spoken. That is the problem quite apart from the wartime shortage of houses. It is recognised that if we make up the building shortage of the war-time, not less than half a. million houses will be required. But that altogether ignores the pre-war housing conditions. In every industrial town in the country there are large areas of cheaply-erected house property, over crowded generally, which has been erected for a period of 50, 60, 70 or 80 years, and every conscientious public authority knows the bye-products that are being thrown off these great housing areas. The Minister of Health will be acquainted with the statistics which his Department compiled. We can record the number of deaths from tuberculosis. We can estimate our infantile mortality. We also recognise the general death-rate which comes from these housing conditions. But there are factors which cannot be recorded. One-third to one-quarter of the entire population of Great Britain is said to be living in houses of three rooms and under. Those conditions, impose either one living or one sleeping room. These conditions are driving our children into the gutters, our growing youths into the streets, our adult male population into the club and public-house, and condemning our women folk to the
monotonous existence of six square yards of house room.
The effect of this aspect of the problem cannot be calculated, and cannot be set forth in statistical form, but it is producing, and has produced, one of the greatest social problems of our time in many of these districts. There is little, so far as I can see, in any of the proposals set up by the Government on this question of housing but which tends to perpetuate that condition of things. At the present moment, according to the report of the Ministry of Health, the whole of the houses in course of erection, or those which have been erected, do not total 100,000. It is a liberal estimate, and we require 100,000 a year. Really that assumes purely the question of quantity, and it assumes all the rest of the houses are in a satisfactory condition. Now this question of the financial aspect is one which is going to affect directly the houses which at present exist.
As the right hon. Gentleman in front has said, the whole question is one of rent. We have had no light up till now from the Ministry of Health as to what the rent of the houses shall be, except that they will approximate to an economic rent. The rents of new houses must inevitably affect the rents of the houses that remain. There are, too, "interests" in the country with which the Ministry of Health must be acquainted who are clamouring for the removal of the Rent Restriction Act. The removal of that Act will be a calamity of the first magnitude. It will restore slumdom as a business proposition in all those great areas of property, most of it undesirable, most of it which ought to be condemned, a great proportion of which would do with a charge of dynamite inside it. It would be economical to the State if that could be done. If the Rent Restriction Act is removed, with high rents for the new houses, we are going to play right into the hands of the owners of this doubtful property. The available evidence would seem to show that the Ministry have left the door right open for this to be done. It is quite conceivable, with a competitive scarcity of houses, and the high rents which will be paid for the houses erected, that the subsidy of the Government is nothing more than a paper promise which can be completely eliminated by the competitive fact of rising rents.
When this House has had its last word upon this question the local authorities are the pivot on which the education, the efficiency, the enlightenment, and the health of our working-class population must turn. Everything that can be done by this House, through the medium of these housing regulations, ought to be done to assist our local authorities. At the present time the local authorities of the country are embarrassed not with carrying out the work which has been entrusted to their care: they are troubled with the responsibility of providing the means by which that work can be done. I agree that the responsibility for financing housing schemes should be upon the State and not upon the local authorities. Some of us on these Benches do not fail to recognise that the national debt at present is something like £8,000,000,000. The national credit has been pledged to that extent for something which has made the world worse and not better than it was before the first shilling was expended. If the national credit can be pledged to that extent it has for that purpose, it can also be utilised in the development of housing schemes, so that wherever a brick is laid it will be a contribution towards that better world about which so' much has been heard. Whether it is in the direction of a challenge to rings amongst builders, combines in building material, or removing the onerous restrictions and penalties which are upon local authorities from the point of view of finance, it is up to the Government to do everything that they can in the direction I have indicated, so that the local authorities can have freedom to go ahead in making provision for the greatest need of our time.

Sir W. SEAGER: I have listened with very great pleasure and profit to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Motion. The Debate has developed on lines such as one would naturally expect. The hon. Member who has just sat down has given us a very gloomy picture of the housing conditions of the country. I would venture to assure him that all the houses in the country are not as bad as he has outlined.

Mr. ROBERTSON: A great many of them are worse.

Sir W. SEAGER: It has been my pleasure in the Recess to visit the valley which adjoins the city I have the honour to represent. I have been through the Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire valleys trying to help and seeking to guide to local authorities and the federated builders in their efforts to overcome the enormous shortage which we all greatly deplore. I can assure hon. Members that the picture is not nearly so gloomy as they have tried to paint. Efforts are being made and will be successfully made to get over these difficulties and I want to plead with hon. Members to-night for patience. Do not let us spoil a good job by being in a hurry. If you hurry this you will spoil it. The Act has only been on the Statute Book five months and there are difficulties in procuring the land, laying it out, and sewering it, and all those operations take a considerable time. Hon. Members opposite will, I am sure, bear with me for a few minutes when I tell them that these difficulties are being got over and houses are being produced and will be produced in greater numbers month by month, if you will only have patience.

Mr. WATERSON: But the difficulty was with us before the War.

Sir W. SEAGER: We have lost a million men during the War, and thousands of men who were in the building trades have gone into the mines and the steel and tin works, and you cannot get them back into the building trade. All those difficulties will be got over if we only have patience, and nothing but patience will do it. Much has been said about the builders. I do not stand here in any sense to defend the builders or the trade unions, but my experience has been that the trade unions and the Federation of Builders are working very amicably and satisfactorily together. I have been trying to show to the local authorities that the contract system was unsuitable for the conditions which we find to-day, and the Minister of Health will, I am sure, deal with that point later on. A scheme has been available by which those risks which are abnormal risks, and which builders had to cover in their contracts, have been eliminated. We have to-day what is known as the agreed price. The bill of quantities is taken out and each item is priced, and a satisfactory price to all concerned is arranged
That has been done throughout the whole of Wales, and I am delighted to know that in large urban and industrial areas those contracts are being agreed on and the houses are beginning to be erected. I would like to remind hon. Members of the housing conditions of which we have heard and to compare them with the housing conditions which we desire. If you hurry this matter you will have streets of houses, such as we were accustomed to in the olden time, but if you wait until the land can be procured and properly laid out we shall have-eight or ten or twelve houses to the acre with a nice little allotment for each to the satisfaction of those who dwell in the houses. We know from experience, and hon. Members opposite who know the Monmouthshire and Glamorgan valleys, will agree, that very serious attempts have been made to build houses fit for heroes to live in. I am sure that could extend and be amplified and much more extended in the days to come, so that those men will have houses in which they can enjoy a clean and healthy life. There is another point. I would ask hon. Members to remember that those dull, monotonous houses which we hear so much about are homes. They contain a father and a mother and children, and it has been my privilege to visit those homes, and I found their home life in every respect satisfactory. It would be a calamity if we did anything to "bust" up, as they call it, this slum area by dynamite or some other force until the proper houses can be built. Much has been said about profiteering and the cost of these houses, but from careful statistics and careful inquiries I am satisfied that the whole of the money is being expended in wages and material. If some method can be found for dealing with the costing and the manufacture of the various materials that are required I shall welcome it very gladly, and I feel sure that the Ministry will undertake that matter at the very earliest opportunity. Much has been said also about the owners of property, and I would ask hon. Members, and particularly those opposite, to remember that the houses of the working classes, so termed, are not as a rule owned by people who profiteer. I have many cases in my own city where working men have thought it the very height of their ambition to own their own house. Having thrifty wives,
they have saved enough perhaps to buy the house next door and eventually another, thus making provision for their old age. These people are suffering very acutely from the Rent Restriction Act. I do not suggest that it should be repealed—that would be a calamity—but we want to be fair and to see that these people who have teen thrifty and have saved their money and put it into house property get a fair and legitimate return on that money for which they have worked hard.
I should like to say a word about the so-called failure of private enterprise.' I do not think that private enterprise has failed in the least. No trade has suffered more than the building trade during the War, but these men, many of them working men who started business as speculative builders and who were absolutely knocked out of existence by the War and had to take on another job, are coming back, and I suggest that the subsidy scheme is going to be a very great help in the provision of houses in the days to come. Round Cardiff dozens of builders are starting to build houses under the subsidy scheme, and in addition the local authorities are building very rapidly. I am glad to say that of 21 houses started some little time ago 12 are now ready and will be occupied in the course of a month or six weeks at a rent which is fair and which the people can afford to pay. The economic rent would have been about 24s. per week, but after very careful consideration the corporation decided that 12s. per week would be a fair rent to charge. A good deal has been said about the houses in the immediate neighbourhood, but I think everyone will agree that these better houses are worth a little more money than the houses which are already in existence. It is only fair that the occupiers should pay a small contribution in return for the extra amenities, advantages, and privileges which these new houses afford. If we pull together, trade unionists, builders, and all those who are interested in the housing problem, the difficulties of finance and all the other difficulties which may be apparent to-day will pass away, and we shall have houses fit for heroes to live in.

Dr. ADDISON: I believe the Members of this House, and indeed the country generally, will be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having so early in the
Session brought to the notice of Parliament the urgency of this problem, and I also venture to thank him for having made a speech which contains useful suggestions. I have heard a good many speeches during the past 12 months in various forms of depreciation, but the number which have contained practical and useful suggestions has been very small indeed. I am sure we all recognise that the speeches by the mover and seconder of this Resolution to-night have been full, from beginning to end, of practical considerations, and I personally thank them for that. I am glad that at long last this Government Department has had a good word said for it from these Benches, it is a refreshing experience.
We are more and more devolving the powers of the Ministry as far as they can be devolved, and I would like to tell the House, as clearly as I can, to what extent this process has gone. We have, during the last year, had to build up the organisation. When you build up an organisation it means you have to get personnel in the first place and to have it trained. That takes time. But more and more. I have adopted the policy of giving greater responsibility to the Housing Commissioners, and now they have within very wide limits complete authority with regard to sites, house plans and tenders, without any references to headquarters.
There is another general observation which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne). It took the form of saying that the nation looked to the Government to provide houses and to allay apprehension. I really do not know what that means. Does the hon. Member mean that this is not a question for the local authority, for the trade unions, or for employers, but that it is solely for the Government to deal with? Are we to dig holes and to put in concrete? If not, what in the world does it mean? We have to use agents and to organise the work. We have to get it organised, and it is no good throwing it in a lump on the Government. That has been the habit of some critics, but it is a usless and meaningless practice. Surely, we are not expected to build the houses. These things have to be done by men who are paid, by men who have time and money to get the material produced, and to supply good workmen. It presents
serious and almost superhuman difficulties to-day. Before the War there was plenty of material, plenty of men, and plenty of money. But what have you got now? A shortage of material, a shortage of transport, a shortage of men and a shortage of money, and it is no good blaming the unfortunate Government because these difficulties exist. The difficulties are there, and we must try to get over that, and we shall get over it. But do not let us pretend that it is some strange entity that dwells in Whitehall that is to blame. That is a useless form of criticism. It does not mean anything.
Let us come to the first inquiry raised by my hon. Friend. I am glad to say better progress is being made, especially arising out of the Act passed towards the close of the recent Session. That is correct. On more than one occasion last Session I prophesied that we should have to live through months of initial spade work in which people would not see the results and in which we were creating the organisation, but the time would come when all these earlier steps would be passing into the final stages. That time has now arrived, and that is why we are now making what appears to be much more rapid progress. We are only now beginning to reap the results of last year's Act, and there is no doubt about it, so far as we are concerned, that our part of the business, the approval of the tenders for 200,000 houses for this year's programme, will be made good. I am confident of that. But the practical questions as to paying for them and building the houses are matters with which I will deal. Let me give the results of our labours since we separated. At that time we had approved plans for 63,000 houses. The figure now is 107,000. During all the months of last year we had only got 16,900 houses into the accepted tender stage. In the last seven weeks we have passed into the accepted tender stage more than twice as many houses as we did in the previous eleven months. The reason is that the plans are now coming to the final stages. We have approved during the last fortnight tenders for more than 18,000 additional houses and the number is rapidly increasing, and will go on increasing. But we have ever before us the standing difficulties of cost and labour shortage.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked if we have made any further progress with regard to public utility schemes under the improved terms. Since the Amending Act was passed we have had thirty new public utility society proposals before us, with a project for building 4,000 additional houses, and it is only just now beginning to move.
With regard to the subsidy, on which further information was asked, the Bill became law on 23rd December and then Christmas week came along and we managed by great efforts to get out the conditions on 9th January after it had been discussed by the different branches of the building trade. The procedure is that a person submits a plan to the local authority and if it is sanctioned and receives the necessary certificate the house becomes thereafter eligible for the grant. We are arranging—and I hope the arrangement will soon be completed—with a number of banks that that certificate shall enable advances to be made to the builder for the purposes of housing, as a guarantee. I only asked the local authorities to give me returns once a month. There were not more than two weeks in January in which the Act had become operative, therefore the returns which I have only relate to the first fortnight of January. That return shows that at that time 707 houses had been sanctioned during that first fortnight for the subsidy, and a further 575 had been lodged. That only relates to half the authorities, but over 1,200 houses come in the first fortnight of the subsidy. That was quite an encouraging start. I may here say, not in reply to criticism, that we are getting information as to a certain amount of, shall I say stickiness, in respect of this matter in different parts of the country. I have heard of places where plans which have been submitted by a man for building under the subsidy scheme have been laid aside a month before being dealt with. That is exceedingly bad. It is very necessary that these things should be dealt with as promptly as possible.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: By whom?

Mr. A. PARKINSON: Is it the local authorities or the Ministry of Health that have laid the plans aside?

Dr. ADDISON: The point is that a man puts in a plan. I am not blaming anybody
—I am stating a fact. He sends the plan to the local authority.

Mr. PARKINSON: The question I put is this—is that direct plan sent to the Ministry of Health?

Dr. ADDISON: It is not sent to the Ministry of Health. If a person is so foolish as not to read the instructions and to send the plan to me, all I could do would be to send it back to him. It is specifically and clearly stated that the plans must be sent to the local authority.

Mr. PARKINSON: indicated dissent.

Dr. ADDISON: I would recommend my hon. Friend to read the instructions, and then he will see that that is so. The fact is, that a number of plans have been lodged and the case has not been determined inside four weeks. It is very necessary that the plans should be promptly dealt with, whether by the Ministry, the local authority or anybody else.
The next important question that was raised was the future of the Rent Restriction Act, and the general policy of the Ministry with regard to rents. I was asked to give some figures as to the actual rents we had asked authorities to charge. According to some of the deputations which have come to me, they do not seem to have got down to the realities of this matter. If it costs £800 to build a house and you could have built the same type of house for £250 previously, you cannot let it for as low a rent as the house which cost £250. That is the basic fact of the whole thing. Do not let us live in a world of dreams. I have set my face against it, and as long as I am the Minister I shall pursue this policy, however unpopular it may be. I am not going to subsidise wages and housing at the same time. The proper policy is, allowing for the excess of the cost due to the War, to secure as soon as you can on the remainder an economic rent. The proper policy—if I may say so, with great respect to the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division (Mr. Myers), whose interesting first speech we all welcomed—for labour should be that the man's wages should be enough to enable him to pay a proper rent. I am not going to be a party to subsidising low rents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or low wages?"] That is the same as wages. I make that statement very emphatically, because I
have to bear all the odium and unpopularity, and I do not mind a bit. The authority to which my hon. Friend alluded, and some others, have come to me and said, "What rent shall we charge?" I believe that I have in every case told them to charge more rent than they were proposing to charge. I have done so deliberately and it is right to do it.

Mr. LAWSON: You subsidise the builders.

Dr. ADDISON: I am dealing now with the rents of the houses. The idea is to take off one-third as the excess of war costs. What we aim at is that in 1927 there shall be an economic rent on the remainder. That means, in a number of cases, that the economic rent of the house should not be less at the end of that time than nearly £1 a week. That is an enormous increase in a working-class rent. It is a grave matter, but we have to face realities, and I am not going to be afraid to face them. Take the case of Birkenhead. They came to me and asked, "What shall we charge?" Having considered the type of the houses, and so on, I said, "For that type of house I want you to charge 10s." For another type I think it was 12s. 6d. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member opposite I asked them to charge 10s. at first. In the case of Birkenhead I said that in 1921 we should look to that rent to be increased by a given amount—I think it was 1s. 6d. a week. It means that in many areas that the rents for these houses are higher at the present time than for houses of a similar class in that district. I admit it is higher. It has got to be higher.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: They are better houses.

Dr. ADDISON: They are better houses. They have better gardens. They are not huddled in rows close together; they are set up 10 or 12 to the acre. They are better homes to live in and they are worth it. Putting that on one side, they cost two and a half times as much to build—three times as much in some cases—and we have to consider that. In Wolverhampton the beginning rents of houses containing a living room, parlour and two bedrooms are 10s. a week; Birmingham 15s., Derby 12s., Birkenhead 10s., Ruislip 12s. 6d., Bilston 15s., and so on. In nearly all these cases we have
fixed a higher rent than houses with the same amount of accommodation would have in the district. Almost without exception the authorities have gone away quite naturally promising themselves and sometimes saying to me, "Well, we shall put the blame on you." They do! I do not mind. Let us face up to it. Unless we recognise that we have to introduce sound economic principles into this business, no one is going to build a house in the future. You will destroy house-building.
I will now say a word about the present Act. It is clear that you cannot sweep it all away and leave nothing in its place next year. At the same time we have got to recognise that rents will have to go up. Not because we want anybody to profiteer on existing houses—I will undertake that any scheme for which I am responsible will secure that they do not profiteer on existing houses—but they have got to go up for all that. Unless rents are allowed to be raised the existing houses will go out of repair, and you must have the increased cost of repair in the rent which will enable the man to keep his houses in repair. For that reason alone rents will have to increase. The Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers and myself some time ago went into this question with all its ramifications very carefully, and a body of gentlemen are now busy framing proposals which will clearly have to be submitted to this House in time this year. At present I cannot go any further than that. I do not know what the proposals will be, but I take it anyhow we have got to recognise that rents must go up to allow people to feel that this class of property is an economic proposition, so as to remove what is now quite honestly felt, and what is really the fact, that this class of property in many districts can only be held at a loss. We have got to put an end to that state of things. Otherwise you will destroy housing for the future.
A great many Members have referred to the financial difficulty. AU I have got to say on that at the present time is that they did not exaggerate it in the least, but I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends that the remedy is a national housing loan. That is the panacea. I ask myself, "What does the nation consist of"? Each Member got up to say that they cannot raise the money in
the locality, and that they have not got the money in the locality. The nation is the aggregation of all the localities. They seemed to think that somehow or other there was an entity, which was called the Government, which existed apart from the locality, which would get the money. Where from? There is plenty of money in the locality. Look at the money they spend in the drapers' shops. There is plenty of money to be spent on all kinds of extravagance. There is plenty of money to be spent on pianos—I am not saying that they are not very nice things. There is plenty of money in many a locality which has come to us to say they cannot raise money for houses. I have said, "You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You have made millions of money during the War, and it is your duty to spend money on houses." There is no such thing as the nation apart from the localities.
Let us take the case of a corporation which was able to raise money previously. The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion said that a place he mentioned had been able to raise money at 5 per cent-, and that they could raise it better than the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Previously; they have had the money called in at 5 per cent.

Dr. ADDISON: At all events, the money was there. I suggest that what we have to do is to see whether some of the money in the localities cannot be raised now in the localities. I think it could be raised under the schemes for housing bonds. After the conference we had with the municipalities the other day it was agreed, I think, that we were bound to begin by having a successful issue in many cases of local bonds. [HON. MEMBERS: "At what rate?"] The rate of interest, I take it, will be issued with the bond, and will be in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will not that cause a great deal of money to be recalled from the hands of local municipalities which is now lent to them at a lower rate of interest, and so embarrass very much the local authorities?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it is possible
for money advanced in the form of bonds to be treated as part purchase money for the houses?

Dr. ADDISON: That is part of the bond issue and is an attractive feature of it. It is not due to any malignity of the Government that you have to raise money at 5¾ or 6 per cent., but the fact is you cannot get money at less than that rate of interest in the City or anywhere else.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: It may be more or less next week.

Dr. ADDISON: The tendency is for the rate of interest to rise. The condition of the lenders to municipalities on short-term money is this: they see the rates of interest rising, and therefore the temptation is to call in short-term loans and relend the money at a higher rate of interest. That exists and is inseparable from the monetary situation.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that these authorities will go outside their areas, because, if not, how is he going to get over the difficulty that many of these districts which have the greatest need of housing have the smallest amount of capital available?

Dr. ADDISON: Take the case of Middlesex. I tried to arrange, and I hope successfully, that the County Council of Middlesex should issue stock. We shall get combination of areas. A scheme has been devised for combining areas for the purpose of local "bond issues. I suggest to hon. Members that the only way to make this thing permanently a success is to invoke local effort. I am sure the local bond issue, if it receives all the support it ought to receive, will be a great success. If the people are appealed to and the case put to them, I am quite certain that they will lend their money. It is a lamentable example that now that Birmingham has actually accepted schemes, that is to say, tenders have been accepted and approved for 3,000 houses, the matter is being held up in consequence of the contracts not being signed, this being due to financial difficulties, or the apprehension of financial difficulties. This would be a disaster to housing and it has to be overcome. The main difficulty arises from high cost, and that is the difficulty which meets us
everywhere. I am glad to say that the Builders' Federation have agreed to limit their profits, and the agreement with them is working very well. They have agreed to take in most districts a proportion of houses amongst their other work. That is something which I hope my Labour friends will appreciate—that, at all events, in many districts members of the Federation are taking this work amongst them at a profit of £30 or £40 per house, which is not more than 5 per cent. profit, when there is plenty of attractive work awaiting them which would give them 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. profit. That is being very generously worked.
With regard to material, I think the quantity required will be forthcoming. I have not a word to say of criticism as to what has been said about prices. I have and propose to issue to hon. Members a statement of the cost of different materials, showing their progressive rise, and it is indeed an appalling statement. I do not profess to understand why it is; but it does not represent any ingredient in the cost with which I am familiar. The Deputy Food Controller is at present going into this question for me. I assure hon. Members that there is no lack of will on this subject. We had to accumulate evidence as to the cost and the facts as to large production, and we had no criterion to work upon. One hon. Member accuses us of having taken no steps to secure material in advance; but if he had known the facts I am sure he would have been the last to make such an accusation. As a matter of fact we placed orders in advance last year for 2,000 million bricks so that we cannot be accused of remissness in that respect.
With regard to labour, I was very disappointed at some of the contributions made by some of my hon. Friends. Let us get down to the actual facts which govern the question. This matter has been the subject of negotiation between my own Department and the Ministry of Labour and with representatives of the building trade since July last. As a matter of fact we have been having nothing but inquiries for the last eight months, and some day I propose to publish the diary, if necessary, of events, and at all events I will undertake to say it will prove that it has not been through any lack of effort at the
Ministry of Health that we have not got a more comprehensively complete scheme. I have the details here but I will not give them now, and I will only say that it is a diary of effort of which I have no reason to be ashamed. The agreed figure is 1–5 operatives per house per year. There are at the present time about 51,000 bricklayers, and there are 66,000 men required on that low computation to build 200,000 houses. We shall certainly have all the tenders and everything ready quite early in the year. There is a shortage of bricklayers alone of at least 15,000 to build the houses that we require this year if there were not a single bricklayer on any other job. In the face of facts like this, what is the good of talking about the possibility of there being a shortage. There is a gigantic shortage staring us in the face, and therefore it is not any good asking if I should not inquire into it. There is no dispute about it. This is the figure which is agreed with the building trade after the most minute inquiry. On the lowest computation there is a shortage of 15,000 bricklayers if every bricklayer in the country were doing nothing else but building houses.

Mr. PARKINSON: It is not figures, it is imagination, that is all.

Dr. ADDISON: It is quite unthinkable that other building should be stopped. Other building must go on. All kinds of factories and works must go on. I say this to my hon. Friend opposite, that nobody can accuse me of saying a word to irritate anybody at any time since this scheme started. I have been infinitely patient, but there is no good pretending there is not a shortage. There is a ghastly shortage and every possible expedient must be brought in to try and help to meet it. It will not do, in my
opinion, to blame the Ministry of Health or the Government. I will adopt any practical suggestion which any man can bring along, but we want a great addition of members of this trade, and unless they are obtained you cannot get the houses. If they are short the houses will cost ever so much more to build than they would otherwise have cost, and that will be reflected in the rents. These are the solid facts so let us address our minds with goodwill and promptitude to the solution of these difficulties. I propose to place the whole case with the facts and figures before the Trades Union Congress, and I have asked to be allowed to go, and I hope the Leader of the Labour party will see that I am allowed to go. I have nothing to be ashamed of in this matter. We want the help of all, and it is not enough that my hon. Friend opposite should tell me of the dismal housing conditions. That is what we are spending all our time to try and remedy; that is what the scheme is for, and that is why we are spending all this public money. Nor is it enough for the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) to refer to another side of this important problem, the importance of which I do not minimise in the least, but we must have at the same time from the party which he represents, useful and practical suggestions for overcoming our difficulties. I say that any man profiteering in materials, or a man who places difficulties in the way of labour, or who in any way increases the inherent difficulties of our task in housing is acting as the enemy of the Commonwealth, whoever he is.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.